... or it causes time travel!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Genesis 1 - what is a day?
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
@FollowingHim I see what you're saying and yet, to my reading, the door isn't totally shut on an understanding of "yom" in Genesis 1 as being read "epoch" as in, "an extended, but defined period of time." That said, I TOTALLY agree with you the actual Hebrew/Chaldee words used more easily lend themselves to a 24-hour period reading. Hands down. No quibbling. A 24-hour day is a simple, easy reading of it.
I don't doubt you!
And yet, I'm not sure the "day numbering" and "morning/evening" reasoning you share completely shuts the door to the "epoch" understanding of "yom" in Genesis 1. Because Creation was an exceptional one-time event I feel it's wise to grant some additional leeway/flexibility in the reading if at all possible, and to my reading, it is still possible (although it's rightly a minority reading of it).A bigger criticism of reading "yom" as "epoch" is this: Why didn't Moses use one of the other words in Hebrew maybe like תקופה "tkufa" or עידן "idan?" Those words may be closer in meaning to our English work "epoch" than "yom" but they weren't used. Why not? Is it because maybe the way the creation event happened, the epochs worked a lot more like actual "days" than "epochs?" Maybe there wasn't a word to describe how God did Creation and "yom" was the best word even though the "days" weren't really literal 24-hour "days" (maybe due to mass being concentrated in a smaller area as @Cap mentioned in the post here).
And I have no problem believing it as 24-hours, even though something is up on Day-Age #3: The trees spout, come to maturity, and bear more seeds - all that happened in 24-hours? Something weird is going on with those trees (entirely possible) or something is up with the day length... Maybe it's like an Alaskan "day" where it's sunlight all day, and the veggies grow huge?
In summary, I think it's wise for us all to be open to the "day-age" reading of it because I don't read the context as absolutely forbidding it and in fact, several places it support it IMHO. But God forgive me if I'm wrong! And all you Young-Earther's don't hate me forever! I hope I'm still welcome here even with this minority position.
With much respect and love,
--JAG
PS. I will carefully read all pertinent points in this thread but will take me some time. Hold please.
Thankyou. I like discussing things with you, you are completely honest about the limitations of your position and the merits of the alternative, even while you hold your own position, it's really refreshing.
Again I completely agree. I discuss "yom" because that's the main word people jump on. You are completely correct that had the author truly intended to say a long period of time, they would most likely have worded it differently.
Given that God does not wish to lie to us, but rather to teach us the truth, why would he have this written in a way that sounds exactly like 24-hour days, if it wasn't that? He could easily have had it clearly stated that they were long periods of time. The simplest explanation is that He simply described in plain language what actually happened.
Is there any clearer way He could have written that it was all normal days, if it was?
God made Adam as an adult. So I have no problem with Him making trees as adults also.
Note though that the text isn't completely explicit on their maturity. It could be read something like "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb (the sort that will yield seed after his kind), and the tree (which will yield fruit with seed in it), after his kind:" The talk about seed and fruit would then be just a description of the plants, even though on that day they were still only tiny little sprouts.
But He would have had to make at least a proportion of them fairly mature, because 3 days later He added animals who needed something to eat.
This is very much a non-critical area of doctrine. It does influence our understanding of scripture, so in my mind is important, but only in the same way that polygamy influences our understanding of scripture. You don't need to believe either of them to be saved!
And you're certainly not the only person around here to hold an old earth view, you are just a minority in this particular discussion, that perspective has certainly been raised from time to time, and I've had to learn to bite my tongue to keep things focussed on marriage rather than getting into off-topic debates... I'm rather passionate about this! But it's off-topic for Biblical Families, is something the ministry has no official position on, and in no way affects whether someone is welcome here or not. Except that anyone who can discuss such an issue in the calm way you do immediately becomes far more welcome in my mind.
Thanks Samuel, I started this thread to get alternative view points. And you guys have not disappointed. Even during this last week as I looked it over, I’ve had to look at a few things from a different lens. I’ve had a fun time reading everyone’s thoughts and views.
Thanks everyone.
And you guys have not disappointed. Even during this last week as I looked it over, I’ve had to look at a few things from a different lens. I’ve had a fun time reading everyone’s thoughts and views. Thanks everyone.