Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

[abelcainsbrother]

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Should we limit what this says? And if yes,why? Why,when it says heavens is the whole universe not included somehow?Heavens means the entire universe and everything in it including the planets,stars,sun,moon,etc yet this seems to get skimmed over.Why?

[neo-x]

Because there is no reason to add to it.

[RickD]

ACB,

I agree. Heavens and earth, is a Hebrew saying that means all that exists. Universe, stars, etc.
From the home site:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Volumes have been written about the first verse of Genesis. There are a two main interpretations of what this verse really means. Some say that the verse is a summary of the rest of the Genesis creation account. Others say that the verse represents the first creative act of God. How can we tell which interpretation is correct?

Day 1
The answer is really quite simple - keep reading! Reading Genesis 1:1 or any other Bible verse outside its context is one of the worst things that a person can do.2 When we look at Genesis 1:2,3 we see that it begins with the conjunction "and." This fact immediately tells us that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of one continuous thought. Remove the period at the end of Genesis 1:1 and read it as originally intended:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void...

Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding CreationThe conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 tells us that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary of the creation account! This verse is a factual statement of what God did at the beginning of the first day. There are other context clues that tell us that this is not a summary statement. If we continue reading the Genesis creation account, we come to the real summary at the end (Genesis 2:1).4 It would be superfluous to have a second summary at the beginning. As we continue to read Genesis one, we will notice how succinct the creation account really is.

So, we conclude that the text claims that God created the heavens and earth on the first day. What do the heavens consist of? Stars, galaxies, etc. So, we know that God created, at minimum, the stars and the earth. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heaven and earth" refer to the entire created universe. Some people claim that God created the earth first and that the rest of the heavenly bodies were created later. However, we are led to contemplate why God said that He created the "heavens and the earth." To accept this interpretation, we would have to say that God created "nothing" and the earth. If God had only created the earth, the Genesis 1:1 would have said, "In the beginning God created the earth." So, we can safely say that God created the entire heavens and earth at the beginning of the first creation day.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

[neo-x]

Because that is not what it says, all it says is that in the beginning God made the tent (Heb: shamayim) the heights, and the land-soil, a place to set foot on. Nothing beyond that.

I have two questions:
1. Why does it say "earth" and not "Earth"?
2. Why does it say heavens, plural?

The homesite appears to be in grave error. It is ignorant of the view of the author and his direction. To the author, land, where he dwells comes first, then comes the sun/stars and heavenly bodies etc. Since it is on this land where God has placed humans therefore it is this place which was made foremost and the rest followed. That is his order.

And further, to him land is a flat disk, surrounded by water and with the firmament above like an inverted dish, a tent/covering, and below them the land of the dead, Sheol.

It was not until the middle ages when the church adopted a spherical earth, suspended in space instead of a flat one, which the Bible authors originally alluded to.

That is the technical problem that such generalizations such as you are making, devoid the text of its context.

[RickD]

Because that is not what it says, all it says is that in the beginning God made the tent (Heb: shamayim) the heights, and the land-soil, a place to set foot on. Nothing beyond that.

I have two questions:
1. Why does it say "earth" and not "Earth"?
2. Why does it say heavens, plural?

The homesite appears to be in grave error. It is ignorant of the view of the author and his direction. To the author, land, where he dwells comes first, then comes the sun/stars and heavenly bodies etc. Since it is on this land where God has placed humans therefore it is this place which was made foremost and the rest followed. That is his order.

And further, to him land is a flat disk, surrounded by water and with the firmament above like an inverted dish, a tent/covering, and below them the land of the dead, Sheol.

It was not until the middle ages when the church adopted a spherical earth, suspended in space instead of a flat one, which the Bible authors originally alluded to.

That is the technical problem that such generalizations such as you are making, devoid the text of its context.

You are kidding, right? You are familiar with the term "heavens and earth", aren't you? Even AIG, believes the term refers to creation of the universe ex nihilo.

The traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 is well known, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It is called the traditional translation because it has been the dominant rendering of Genesis 1:1 since the Greek Septuagint, the first major translation of the Hebrew Bible (into Greek), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century BC. Does the traditional translation describe the absolute beginning of the universe? Does it communicate the idea that the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing? Throughout history, Jews and Christians have overwhelmingly said, “Yes!”

https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneuti ... enesis-11/

[neo-x]

I am not representing AIG or YEC's, I am simply showing you the text and what it actually says. You or Rich or AIG or anyone for that matter are free to read and insert into it whatever you think it may mean. I am just showing you how that is irresponsible in the least and well, blunder in the worst.

Think about what you wrote, you are holding up an English phrase as genuine and questioning its Hebrew source?

And did you have had a chance to look at my two questions? here they are again:
1. Why does it say "earth" and not "Earth"?
2. Why does it say heavens, plural?

Thanks.

[RickD]

I am not representing AIG or YEC's, I am simply showing you the text and what it actually says. You or Rich or AIG or anyone for that matter are free to read and insert into it whatever you think it may mean. I am just showing you how that is irresponsible in the least and well, blunder in the worst.

Think about what you wrote, you are holding up an English phrase as genuine and questioning its Hebrew source?

And did you have had a chance to look at my two questions? here they are again:
1. Why does it say "earth" and not "Earth"?
2. Why does it say heavens, plural?

Thanks.

Neo,

I'm really not seeing the issue with heaven or heavens. Some translations use the singular, some the plural. Here's different translations of Genesis 1:1
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm

Earth, or earth. I don't see the issue.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex ... H776&t=KJV

[neo-x]

I am not representing AIG or YEC's, I am simply showing you the text and what it actually says. You or Rich or AIG or anyone for that matter are free to read and insert into it whatever you think it may mean. I am just showing you how that is irresponsible in the least and well, blunder in the worst.

Think about what you wrote, you are holding up an English phrase as genuine and questioning its Hebrew source?

And did you have had a chance to look at my two questions? here they are again:
1. Why does it say "earth" and not "Earth"?
2. Why does it say heavens, plural?

Thanks.

Neo,

I'm really not seeing the issue with heaven or heavens. Some translations use the singular, some the plural. Here's different translations of Genesis 1:1
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm

Earth, or earth. I don't see the issue.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex ... H776&t=KJV

The word earth (erets) has roots in the idea of being firm, not a planet. So when you read Gen 1:1 its doesn't say planet Earth, it just means land. Any land or to the extent the author was aware of. A flat land, on which a large tent (firmament) was placed on. Not a revolving planetary unit harboring around a yellow star.

Creation positions aside, I find it much more illuminating then reading science back into it. You end up ruining the original texture of what and why the author penned it like such. Context is lost. It is no less than an art, if I may say so to write poetry as such.

Have you had a chance to read up on the three tiered plains of existence? Heaven, land, and Sheol? What are your thoughts on that? Do you see why the ancients saw the world like that?

[RickD]

Neo,

I'm not reading science back into it. I'm reading the Meaning of "earth" from the blue letter bible:

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
אֶרֶץ ʼerets, eh'-rets; from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):—× common, country, earth, field, ground, land, × natins, way, + wilderness, world.

It can mean the earth, or land.

Please stop accusing me of reading science into it. It's dishonest, and tiring. If you disagree with my literal interpretation, that's fine. But the reading science into scripture garbage, is getting old.

[neo-x]

Neo,

I'm not reading science back into it. I'm reading the Meaning of "earth" from the blue letter bible:

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
אֶרֶץ ʼerets, eh'-rets; from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):—× common, country, earth, field, ground, land, × natins, way, + wilderness, world.

It can mean the earth, or land.

Please stop accusing me of reading science into it. It's dishonest, and tiring. If you disagree with my literal interpretation, that's fine. But the reading science into scripture garbage, is getting old.

Does it mean a planet?

EDIT: You know, never mind. It is probably no good talking past each other.

[Kurieuo]

If you combine the words "dragon" and "fly" together, should they be understood separately or together?
Together of course, and when combined the phrase "dragonfly" carries a distinct meaning.

@Neo, I see you're making a similar mistake with the phrase hashamayim we ha'erets (which word-by-word is rendered "the [ha] heavens pl. [shamayim] and [we] the [ha] earth [erets]"). Shamayim with its "im" indicates plurality—"heavens".

I mentioned earlier that the phrase hashamayim we ha'erets carries a distinct meaning. This is not questioned by either side, and so if you do not possess a deeper understanding of the Hebrew language then it seems you are actually reading your own perceptions of ancient people into Scripture -- that they were entirely scientifically ignoramus. Furthermore, the idea that everyone in the ancient world believed the world was flat until more modern times appears to be more of a perpetrated popular myth than reality.

In any case, this entire phrase when these words are used together consistently refers to the totality of the universe. This means in Genesis 1, all the materials of the universe (i.e., matter, energy and whatever else it contains) were created. But, to what extent were they created?

Well, verse 1 quickly continues into verse 2 where we are given a reference point — Earth is formless and empty. So we can assume everything prior to Earth being formless and empty was in place and is included the hashamayim we ha'erets of verse 1. At verse 2, the required conditions for a primitive Earth to be existent were already there. Textually, it is silent scientifically about what these conditions were for a primitive Earth to be in existence, except that we can read the hashamayim we ha'erets were in place prior which is scientifically neutral.

[RickD]

K,

Thanks for explaining it in more detail.

I just thought it was pretty much accepted, that the phrase, "heaven and earth" means all of creation. I mean, at least this is something YECs and OECs agree on.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm really not trying to give ya'll a hard time but based on what I've read so far there is some confusion somewhere.I'm not so sure YEC's and OEC's really believe "the heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 means the entire Universe and the earth,because once we get past verse 1,it suddenly seems to be forgotten and then we hear explanations of how it was not the entire Universe after all because God then works on it and finally completes an imperfect earth and universe in Genesis 1. Meanwhile I really believe what it says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I truly believe in its entirety,a perfect creation in the beginning of the entire universe and earth.However I also believe something happened to the entire Cosmos and the earth that caused it to be in the state it is in,in verse 2

[Kurieuo]

K,

Thanks for explaining it in more detail.

I just thought it was pretty much accepted, that the phrase, "heaven and earth" means all of creation. I mean, at least this is something YECs and OECs agree on.

Essentially it is accepted as such.

Note, "all of creation" is a translation that YECs would probably more prefer to attach in verse 1.
For they generally see verse 1 as an introduction verse representing all six days of God's creation before Genesis actually gets into God's work days.
"All of creation" seems a less accurate understanding that ignores the actual language flow of heavens and earth.

I believe a more accurate translation follows with the flow of what is said, that is, "all of the universe" (the heavens including the Earth [ha'earth]), and verse 2 reveals to what the extent the hashamayim we ha'erets (universe) is developed.

Rich Deem writes in his article The Six Days of Creation:

1) The Heavens and the Earth

The verbs used in Genesis 1:1-2 (i.e., God “created” and earth “was”) are in the perfect tense32 and distinct from the wayyiqtol verb form used in the remainder of Genesis 1. As Hebrew linguist C. John Collins33 notes, the wayyiqtol verb functions as “the backbone or storyline tense of Biblical Hebrew narrative discourse,”34 while the perfect verb “denotes an event that took place before the main storyline got underway.”35 Thus, the verb forms indicate the creation of “the heavens and the Earth” was separate from, and preceded, the events of the first creation day.

The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) is known as a merism, where words coupled together have a different meaning than the individual words. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines hashamayim we ha ‘erets as “all the raw materials needed to make sun, planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, molecules, atoms.”36 Similarly, Vine and Grudem each equate hashamayim we ha ‘erets with “the entire universe” and “entire creation.”37 This further supports the old-earth view that the entire universe–including the Earth, Sun, Moon, and stars–were created prior to the first creation day.

[Kurieuo]

I'm really not trying to give ya'll a hard time but based on what I've read so far there is some confusion somewhere.I'm not so sure YEC's and OEC's really believe "the heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 means the entire Universe and the earth,because once we get past verse 1,it suddenly seems to be forgotten and then we hear explanations of how it was not the entire Universe after all because God then works on it and finally completes an imperfect earth and universe in Genesis 1. Meanwhile I really believe what it says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I truly believe in its entirety,a perfect creation in the beginning of the entire universe and earth.However I also believe something happened to the entire Cosmos and the earth that caused it to be in the state it is in,in verse 2

Read my previous post ACB.

Re: the universe being destroyed by angelic beings between verses 1 and 2,
this is a separate discussion (please open up a new thread if you do want to discuss),
but where are the missing verses for something happening in between verses 1 and 2?

As I see it, such is introducing a fabricated idea into the text, similar to those who say God was a supernatural light in the sky replacing the Sun to give a extraordinary day on the first three days (to be clear AiG's YEC interpretation, and not Jac's).
Both ideas are nowhere to be found in the actual text.