Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote:Another indicator in the text that the presence of an evening (end) and morning (beginning) does not imply 24 hours is the absence of an evening and a morning in day 7.

What does the absence of an evening and morning for day 7 tell us?
How long was day 7, since it had no evening and morning (Hebrews 4 gives us a clue)?

When God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath it means a day of 24 hours. The length of the first six days had already been defined. There was no need to repeat the information for the seventh day.

theophilus wrote: Genesis 1:14-19 tells us that on the fourth day God placed lights in the sky. Most people assume that he did so by creating the bodies that produce the light but that isn't necessarily the case. It is possible that there was a cloud cover that kept them from being seen. On the first day the clouds thinned enough so light could reach the earth; on the fourth day they were removed so the sources of the light could be seen.

theophilus wrote:

DBowling wrote:Another indicator in the text that the presence of an evening (end) and morning (beginning) does not imply 24 hours is the absence of an evening and a morning in day 7.

What does the absence of an evening and morning for day 7 tell us?
How long was day 7, since it had no evening and morning (Hebrews 4 gives us a clue)?

When God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath it means a day of 24 hours. The length of the first six days had already been defined. There was no need to repeat the information for the seventh day.

What about the sabbath year, was that 24 hours too?

theophilus wrote:

DBowling wrote:Another indicator in the text that the presence of an evening (end) and morning (beginning) does not imply 24 hours is the absence of an evening and a morning in day 7.

What does the absence of an evening and morning for day 7 tell us?
How long was day 7, since it had no evening and morning (Hebrews 4 gives us a clue)?

When God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath it means a day of 24 hours. The length of the first six days had already been defined. There was no need to repeat the information for the seventh day.

Actually God commanded the Israelites to celebrate Sabbaths of different durations. There is the weekly Sabbath you mentioned, but there are other Sabbaths that aren't weekly, for example there is the Sabbath in Leviticus 25:3-5 that lasts a whole year. The weekly Sabbath lasts 24 hours and the Lev 25 Sabbath last for a whole year. Both of these Sabbaths look back to creation day seven, but they last for different lengths of time, which means you cannot use the length of time that a particular Sabbath celebration lasts to infer the length of Creation Day 7.

Which brings us back to Hebrews 4.
Hebrews 4:4-11 indicates that Day 7 was still occurring at the time the book of Hebrews was written. Which does explain why Moses didn't use the "there was evening and there was morning" phrase for day 7. Day 7 hadn't ended when Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

And as has already been pointed out earlier, the phrase "there was evening and there was morning" does not refer to a 24 hour period of time. So the assertion that "the length of the first six days had already been defined" as 24 hours in Genesis 1 is factually false.

DBowling wrote:

theophilus wrote:

DBowling wrote:Another indicator in the text that the presence of an evening (end) and morning (beginning) does not imply 24 hours is the absence of an evening and a morning in day 7.

What does the absence of an evening and morning for day 7 tell us?
How long was day 7, since it had no evening and morning (Hebrews 4 gives us a clue)?

When God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath it means a day of 24 hours. The length of the first six days had already been defined. There was no need to repeat the information for the seventh day.

Actually God commanded the Israelites to celebrate Sabbaths of different durations. There is the weekly Sabbath you mentioned, but there are other Sabbaths that aren't weekly, for example there is the Sabbath in Leviticus 25:3-5 that lasts a whole year. The weekly Sabbath lasts 24 hours and the Lev 25 Sabbath last for a whole year. Both of these Sabbaths look back to creation day seven, but they last for different lengths of time, which means you cannot use the length of time that a particular Sabbath celebration lasts to infer the length of Creation Day 7.

Which brings us back to Hebrews 4.
Hebrews 4:4-11 indicates that Day 7 was still occurring at the time the book of Hebrews was written. Which does explain why Moses didn't use the "there was evening and there was morning" phrase for day 7. Day 7 hadn't ended when Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

And as has already been pointed out earlier, the phrase "there was evening and there was morning" does not refer to a 24 hour period of time. So the assertion that "the length of the first six days had already been defined" as 24 hours in Genesis 1 is factually false.

Good point. If the 7th day hadn't ended, that means it wasn't 24 hours. And if the 7th day wasn't 24 hours, then there goes the argument for the other days being 24 hours(or 24 hours and 21 minutes as theophilus suggested).

It's funny how "24 hours" always gets substituted in for an ordinary day, when ordinary days require the Sun moving through Earth's heavens and thus an evening and morning can be had. Do YECs truly accept the days in Genesis are ordinary days?

Kurieuo wrote:It's funny how "24 hours" always gets substituted in for an ordinary day, when ordinary days require the Sun moving through Earth's heavens and thus an evening and morning can be had. Do YECs truly accept the days in Genesis are ordinary days?

In theophilus' defense, he doesn't take Genesis quite as literally and concretely when he believes the sun only became visible, but was already created. Why he feels the need to be inconsistent, and take yom literally and concretely, is puzzling.

RickD wrote:In theophilus' defense, he doesn't take Genesis quite as literally and concretely when he believes the sun only became visible, but was already created. Why he feels the need to be inconsistent, and take yom literally and concretely, is puzzling.

There is nothing inconsistent in my beliefs. The Bible doesn't say that God created the sun, moon, or stars on the fourth day.

theophilus wrote:

RickD wrote:In theophilus' defense, he doesn't take Genesis quite as literally and concretely when he believes the sun only became visible, but was already created. Why he feels the need to be inconsistent, and take yom literally and concretely, is puzzling.

There is nothing inconsistent in my beliefs. The Bible doesn't say that God created the sun, moon, or stars on the fourth day.

And the Bible doesn't say how long the creation days are, either.

Establishment of Kingdoms
Day 1 - God establishes the heavens and earth. The Spirit of God broods over earth's formless, void "watery face". Light is commanded to be had, which is then separated from darkness establishing the kingdoms of "Night" and "Day".
Day 2 - God separates waters above from waters below, creating a sky separate from the waters below.
Day 3 - God creates dry land and the waters now gathered together on the surface seas. Vegetation if created on the land (in preparation for land creatures).

Filling of the Kingdoms
Day 4 - God fills the heavens, creating stars, Sun, moon, establishing them for signs and seasons. The Sun fills and governs the "Day" (light) sky, the lesser light (Moon) fills and governs the Night (dark) sky which is also filled with stars.
Day 5 - God fills the waters which bring forth creatures abundantly, filling the waters in the seas with life, and filling the skies above with birds.
Day 6 - God fills the land which brings forth creatures, every thing that creeps upon the earth, and finishes with the creation of man and woman.

The literary form employed (creation within a Sabbatical 6-1 day structure) to establish Israel's God as the one true Lord of all creation seems obvious to me. Those who treat the text more rigidly, imposing their own strongly held beliefs into the text (particularly regarding time), are performing eisegesis. Exegesis will stop talking when Scripture stops. Most conflict happens with eisegesis, the exegesis seems now quite straight-forward to me (after many years debating creation) and neutral to many varying positions often had.

Some comments...

Kurieuo wrote:Establishment of Kingdoms
Day 1 - God establishes the heavens and earth. The Spirit of God broods over earth's formless, void "watery face". Light is commanded to be had, which is then separated from darkness establishing the kingdoms of "Night" and "Day".

This recent thread has led me to do more research into Day 1, specifically the relationship between Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11. From the narrative structure of Genesis 1 it appears that Genesis 1:1-2 are establishing the context for the "creation days" and Day 1 actually begins with Genesis 1:3 where we have the first "then God said". The implication of this is that the earth had already been created/bara (Genesis 1:1) but was in an unordered state prior to the 6 creation days (Genesis 1:2).

So how does this reconcile with Exodus 20:11?
It just hit me a couple of days ago that Exodus 20:11 does not say...
For in 6 days the Lord created/bara the heavens and the earth
The text of Exodux 20:11 says
For in 6 days the Lord made/asah the heavens and the earth.

Exodus 20:11 is not saying that the heavens and the earth were created/bara (brought into existence) during the 6 creation days. It is saying that the heavens and the earth were asah/made/formed/worked on during the 6 creation days.

So the Genesis 1 narrative and Exodus 20:11 are in agreement that the heavens and the earth were in existence prior to the 6 creation days, and that during the 6 creation days (each beginning with "and God said") God is bring order to the disorder we see in Genesis 1:2.

Day 2 - God separates waters above from waters below, creating a sky separate from the waters below.
Day 3 - God creates dry land and the waters now gathered together on the surface seas. Vegetation if created on the land (in preparation for land creatures).

Filling of the Kingdoms
Day 4 - God fills the heavens, creating stars, Sun, moon, establishing them for signs and seasons. The Sun fills and governs the "Day" (light) sky, the lesser light (Moon) fills and governs the Night (dark) sky which is also filled with stars.

God does not create/bara the sun moon and stars during day 4. He makes/asah the sun moon and stars. The sun, moon and stars are placed in the firmament/sky (not created) on day 4.

Day 5 - God fills the waters which bring forth creatures abundantly, filling the waters in the seas with life, and filling the
skies above with birds.
Day 6 - God fills the land which brings forth creatures, every thing that creeps upon the earth, and finishes with the creation of man and woman.

The literary form employed (creation within a Sabbatical 6-1 day structure) to establish Israel's God as the one true Lord of all creation seems obvious to me. Those who treat the text more rigidly, imposing their own strongly held beliefs into the text (particularly regarding time), are performing eisegesis. Exegesis will stop talking when Scripture stops. Most conflict happens with eisegesis, the exegesis seems now quite straight-forward to me (after many years debating creation) and neutral to many varying positions often had.

The interpretive question for me is...
Is the original intent of the Biblical author the only valid basis for interpreting a Scriptural text or does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit allow for meanings to the Scriptural text that transcend the intent of the original author?
When you look at Messianic prophecies and the Resurrection we see numerous times where the special revelation by the NT authors provides new meaning to OT texts that were unknown to the author of the original text.
I have no problem with the premise that general revelation can also provide meaning to OT texts that transcends the original intent of the author of the original text.

I think the intent of Moses when he wrote the Genesis Creation account was to describe functional origins using temple imagery. The cosmology of Moses and the ancient world was very different from modern cosmology, so I do not think that the day-age theory understood within the context of modern cosmology represents Moses' original intent.

However, I do believe that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does allow for the meaning of Scripture to transcend the original intent of the original author. Hugh Ross has convinced me that the Genesis 1 creation narrative is also consistent with the material origins of the heavens and the earth as understood within the context of modern cosmology.

All that to say this. I believe that it is possible to arrive at the day-age theory by using a legitimate exegesis of the Scriptural text.

In Christ

The interpretive question for me is...
Is the original intent of the Biblical author the only valid basis for interpreting a Scriptural text or does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit allow for meanings to the Scriptural text that transcend the intent of the original author?

It has bothered me for quite some time that we read and hear so much emphasis upon: "What would the text have meant to the original audience; What was it meant to convey to THEM?" As if the text is limited to its first intended audiences. God well foreknew when he inspired what was written down, and how it was written, that subsequent generations of people would one day have ever more revelation about the world and universe as they also read these same texts. So, to me, the question expands to: Who is the INCLUSIVE intended audience of the text. God's revelation to man is progressive, as many things will make far more sense as time and events develop - just like when first century Jews began to read the OT passages with knowledge of the events surrounding Jesus life, death and resurrection - suddenly, they realized it was all right in front of them, but unclear, pre-Christ life on earth. For instance, right now, much of the end times passages have considerable possibilities as to their true meanings, particularly as to how they will specifically play out. There are currently key, unknown variables that make properly understanding those passages impossible to perfectly understand - we see but shadows of the parameters involved. But as those days draw near, God's people will recognize and have far greater clarity about those texts as they begin to take shape. And that's but one example, of Biblical text that has meanings that will transcends the abilities of it's original audience's understandings. I almost never hear this emphasized, whenever people teach theology or hermeneutics.

Don't confuse who the text was written FOR with who it was written TO.
Or divine progressive revelation.