|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: So I heard that a "Day" is actually translated "period [of time]" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: He ties the newly created sun to the previously existing day.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: And the relevance of this is ?
quote: 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 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: Since you attribute an implausible degree of knowledge to him, that much is obvious. What is lacking is evidence for your assumptions.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No. And I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I said any such thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: Largely because you keep expecting me to share your assumptions.
quote: 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: That more describes your attitude.
quote: And you expect others to accept it as fact because you say so. I've asked for evidence, and you've provided none.
quote: That is not my impression. You seem to mind very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say anything about that.
quote: A YEC would disagree and would quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in "support" of THAT claim. See the problem ?
quote: I disagree with that. You are making a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion.
quote: That is NOT in 2 Timothy 3:16.
quote: The same way the creators of other creation myths did.
quote: Of course I do. That doesn't mean that that isn't what 1 Genesis says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024