Abrahamics: Do you accept 6 Days Creation interpretation by your Prophets and Saints?

[InvestigateTruth]

I didn't ignore anything. The trees and the fruits don't require the lights in the firmament of the heavens to be visible. They only require LIGHT (which existed on the first day). If there is light on the first day, then you can have plants on the third day, because that's all plants require for photosynthesis.

That's simply incorrect. Totally contradictory against logic and science.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That's how I AM taking it here. Keep up!

I find it hard to believe that anyone is actually this stupid. Therefore I'm going to assume that you're being a troll here and have chosen to be willfully ignorant because you want an argument. If so, I'm not impressed! So before I even read anything else you say or respond to it, let me state very clearly what my position ACTUALLY IS, and then let you ponder what your actual rebuttal should be.

I believe that the word YOM in Hebrew, just like the word DAY in English has multiple, literal meanings. If you don't believe that this is true, then I'd direct you to look up the word "day" in the merriam-webster dictionary and learn the various definitions of the word. Having established that, the meaning/definition of the word in any given passage should be determined by the context of the scripture (that is, all of the preceding and following clues that tells you which definition you should be using). Now, just think about that for a little while, then go back and read what I actually wrote in my previous responses, then get back to me when you can formulate a LOGICAL response, instead of a retarded one. Until then!

Do you even know what you are talking about. Each day according to genesis is a cycle of appearance of Light and Darkness. Now on one hand you said each day and night is 12 hours and on the other post you said each day is an Age. Obviously you contradicted yourself. Do you not realize how much your literal interpretation is invalid. You have to choose. If you say each day is an Age, explain how it goes through the Cycles of light and darkness. If you say each day and night is about 12 hours explain how within 24 hours in day 3 Trees and fruits appeared. Don't you want to admit your interpretation doesn't work? If I were you I would be thankful someone show me truth instead of getting upset about loosing.
Peace

 

[captainbryce]

Do you even know what you are talking about.

Absolutely. But you seem to have some trouble following my logic.

Each day according to genesis is a cycle of appearance of Light and Darkness.

Yes, that is ONE of several definitions of the word day (as it is in English).

Now on one hand you said each day and night is 12 hours and on the other post you said each day is an Age. Obviously you contradicted yourself.

That's not a contradiction. Both statements are true because there are multiple definitions of the word day (depending on the context you are using it). What part about that do you not understand?

Do you not realize how much your literal interpretation is invalid.

Evidently not.

You have to choose.

I agree. And I do choose (based on context) which definition is appropriate.

If you say each day is an Age, explain how it goes through the Cycles of light and darkness.

Here, this may help you: https://www.google.com/#q=day+definition&safe=off

If you say each day and night is about 12 hours explain how within 24 hours in day 3 Trees and fruits appeared.

I'm saying that day three lasted much longer than 12 hours and much longer than 24 hours. Each creation day was in fact a LONG period of time (age). It is not the same usage of the word "day" that refers to the 12 hour period of light, or the 24 hour period of rotation. It's the other definition of the word day.

Don't you want to admit your interpretation doesn't work?

My interpretation is the ONLY one that works. Once you understand what I am actually saying, you'll see that.

If I were you I would be thankful someone show me truth instead of getting upset about loosing.
Peace

You're embarrassing yourself here because I didn't lose.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I'm saying that day three lasted much longer than 12 hours and much longer than 24 hours. Each creation day was in fact a LONG period of time (age). It is not the same usage of the word "day" that refers to the 12 hour period of light, or the 24 hour period of rotation. It's the other definition of the word day.

So far you explained how you interprete the word 'Day". You said Each creation day was in fact a LONG period of time (age).


And my question is How do you understand the word 'Night", "Evening" and "Morning" in the following verse:

"God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day." Genesis 1:5


Do you believe in one Age that for example lasted thousands or millions of years, there was one morning, one evening and one night? You mean it took several millions of years from morning to evening and night?

 

[captainbryce]

So far you explained how you interprete the word 'Day". You said Each creation day was in fact a LONG period of time (age).


And my question is How do you understand the word 'Night", "Evening" and "Morning" in the following verse:

"God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day." Genesis 1:5

"Night" is the opposite of "Day" (ie: the other 12 hour period of darkness). This would be the inverse of the definition for the word day that means "daylight".

"Evening" and "Morning" are terms that refer to the end of one day, and the beginning of another day. These terms can apply to ANY definition of the word day. Evening could literally represent the end of a 12 hour period of light, it could mean the end of a 24 hour cycle, or it could mean the end of an era. Same thing with the word "morning" as it applies the beginning of any kind of "day". For example, the expression "the dawning of a new day" does not necessarily refer to a 24 hour cycle, but it can refer to some significant era in time.

Florida high school sports | Dawning of a new day: Taking a look inside Strawberry Crest's football program

Morning and evening are terms that mean beginning and end of a day, but they do not define what type of day we are talking about. My interpretation of the terms is that they refer to the end of one age of creation, and the beginning of another.

Do you believe in one Age that for example lasted thousands or millions of years, there was one morning, one evening and one night? You mean it took several millions of years from morning to evening and night?

You're looking at this a little to one-dimensionally. You're trying to apply one definition of a word "day" (daylight) to a completely different definition of the word "day" (age), thereby changing the parameters of the definition. What I'm saying is that whatever type of "day" you determine the scripture to be talking about in one instance, then it must also be talking about the related type of "evening" and "morning". If it's referring to a 24 hour day, then the associated "evening" and "morning" would represent a 24 hour period. If it's referring to an "age", then the "evening" and "morning" would be the end of one age and the dawning of another. (eg: the "evening and morning" that takes place after the Middle Ages would be the Renaissance, end of one era and beginning of another).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"Night" is the opposite of "Day" (ie: the other 12 hour period of darkness). This would be the inverse of the definition for the word day that means "daylight".

So, here are you saying that in Genesis 1, each 'Day' is not related to 'Daylight' and each 'Night' is not related to the period of darkness, as generally understood. But instead you are saying each Day, is an Age, or an Era, and has nothing to do with period of 'Day Light' or 'Darkness'. Am I understanding you right here?

"Evening" and "Morning" are terms that refer to the end of one day, and the beginning of another day. These terms can apply to ANY definition of the word day. Evening could literally represent the end of a 12 hour period of light, it could mean the end of a 24 hour cycle, or it could mean the end of an era. Same thing with the word "morning" as it applies the beginning of any kind of "day". For example, the expression "the dawning of a new day" does not necessarily refer to a 24 hour cycle, but it can refer to some significant era in time.

Florida high school sports | Dawning of a new day: Taking a look inside Strawberry Crest's football program

Morning and evening are terms that mean beginning and end of a day, but they do not define what type of day we are talking about. My interpretation of the terms is that they refer to the end of one age of creation, and the beginning of another.

So far you have shown that, each Day is an Age. Farther you showed 'Morning' is not meant literally the morning when the Sun rises, but it means just the beginning of an Age. 'Morning' is the beginning of the Age, and 'Night' is the End of an Age or Era.

Very Well. Then how do you interpret 'darkness' and 'light' in the same verse:

"God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day." Genesis 1:5

If you say that 'Morning' is the beginning of an Age, and Night is the End of an Age, then in your view, what was in the mind of the Author that He said in the same verse that 'Day' is related to 'Light', and 'Night' is related to 'Darkness'. Remember, you said, 'Morning' is not literally morning when the Sun rises, but it means just the beginning of an Age.

 

[captainbryce]

So, here are you saying that in Genesis 1, each 'Day' is not related to 'Daylight' and each 'Night' is not related to the period of darkness, as generally understood. But instead you are saying each Day, is an Age, or an Era, and has nothing to do with period of 'Day Light' or 'Darkness'. Am I understanding you right here?

Correct! :yes:

The type of "day" that is being referred to in Genesis 1:5, simply means "daylight", and it is the inverse of "night". We know this because the preceding verse Genesis 1:4 gives us some additional context (he separates light from darkness). Therefore, "day" in Genesis 1:5 means "daylight". It does not refer to a 24 hour day, nor does it refer to an age/era. Those are completely different definitions of the word day that are not related to Genesis 1:4.

So far you have shown that, each Day is an Age. Farther you showed 'Morning' is not meant literally the morning when the Sun rises, but it means just the beginning of an Age. 'Morning' is the beginning of the Age, and 'Night' is the End of an Age or Era.

Very Well. Then how do you interpret 'darkness' and 'light' in the same verse:

"God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day." Genesis 1:5

See above! Genesis 1:5 is defining the 12 hour period of light as "day", and the 12 hour period of darkness as "night". But this verse has nothing to do with the "creation days" (day 1, day 2, day 3).

If you say that 'Morning' is the beginning of an Age, and Night is the End of an Age,

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "Morning" is the beginning of and age, and "Evening" is the end of an age. The terms "Day" (as in daylight) and "Night" (as in nighttime) are completely unrelated to the "Evenings" and "Mornings" of the creation days.

then in your view, what was in the mind of the Author that He said in the same verse that 'Day' is related to 'Light', and 'Night' is related to 'Darkness'. Remember, you said, 'Morning' is not literally morning when the Sun rises, but it means just the beginning of an Age.

Let me try to paraphrase in contemporary language what I believe the author was trying to convey. Better yet, I'll just give you my interpretation of creation from the biblical texts, in my own words. Hopefully, this will make it easier for you to understand my position.

Genesis 1 (Captainbryce Translation)
1 In the beginning God created Jesus Christ as a spiritual being [extrapolated from John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15], through which he created the entire universe and everything in it (to include the angels in heaven, the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Planets, and all matter, energy, space and time). 2 The earth was formless and empty, and it was dark on the surface of the planet because thick clouds were covering the entire planet and blocked out the sunlight. [extrapolated from Job 38:9] The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and the atmosphere was transformed and made translucent, so that the light from the sun could penetrate the clouds. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God spun the earth on it's axis, so that once every rotation, one side of the planet could be light, while the other side is dark. [also extrapolated from Job 38:12-13] 5 God referred to the period of light hours as “daytime”, and referred to the period of the hours of darkness as “nighttime.”

And these events marked the end of the first age, and the beginning of the second.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters on the surface from the water in the upper atmosphere, thereby establishing the earth's natural water cycle. 8 God called the space “sky.”

And these events marked the end of the second age, and the beginning of the third.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters on the surface flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And then plate tectonics caused the continental land masses to form. [also extrapolated from Psalm 104:8-9] 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas” and oceans. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 Over time land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. [also extrapolated from Psalm 104:14-15] And God saw that it was good.

13 And these events marked the end of the third age, and the beginning of the fourth.

14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And the atmosphere again was transformed, this time from translucent to transparent, and the heavenly bodies could now be seen for the first time. 16 God made the sun to light the day, and the moon to light the night. He also made the stars which you can now see at night too. [also extrapolated from Psalm 104:19] 17 God set ALL these lights in the sky to light the earth, in different ways that help us 18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And these events marked the end of the fourth age, and the beginning of the fifth.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with flying animals of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of flying animal—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, and allowed them to reproduce in great numbers. The fish and sea creatures filled the seas, and flying animals filled the skies on the earth.”

23 And these events marked the end of the fifth age, and the beginning of the sixth.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God (or one of the angels that he previously created) said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.”

27 So God created human beings in his own image. First he created Adam, who was male, but then after so much time by himself Adam became lonely so God gave him a female partner, named Eve. But this will be discussed in more detail later in Genesis 2.

28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” And human beings eventually populated the entire world and became the dominant species on the planet.

29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the animals” And that is what happened.

31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!

And these events marked the end of the sixth age, where God completed creation, and the beginning of the seventh age where God is no longer actively creating.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Correct! :yes:

The type of "day" that is being referred to in Genesis 1:5, simply means "daylight", and it is the inverse of "night". We know this because the preceding verse Genesis 1:4 gives us some additional context (he separates light from darkness). Therefore, "day" in Genesis 1:5 means "daylight". It does not refer to a 24 hour day, nor does it refer to an age/era. Those are completely different definitions of the word day that are not related to Genesis 1:4.

See above! Genesis 1:5 is defining the 12 hour period of light as "day", and the 12 hour period of darkness as "night". But this verse has nothing to do with the "creation days" (day 1, day 2, day 3).

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "Morning" is the beginning of and age, and "Evening" is the end of an age. The terms "Day" (as in daylight) and "Night" (as in nighttime) are completely unrelated to the "Evenings" and "Mornings" of the creation days.

Let me try to paraphrase in contemporary language what I believe the author was trying to convey. Better yet, I'll just give you my interpretation of creation from the biblical texts, in my own words. Hopefully, this will make it easier for you to understand my position.

Genesis 1 (Captainbryce Translation)
1 In the beginning God created Jesus Christ as a spiritual being [extrapolated from John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15], through which he created the entire universe and everything in it (to include the angels in heaven, the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Planets, and all matter, energy, space and time). 2 The earth was formless and empty, and it was dark on the surface of the planet because thick clouds were covering the entire planet and blocked out the sunlight. [extrapolated from Job 38:9] The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and the atmosphere was transformed and made translucent, so that the light from the sun could penetrate the clouds. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God spun the earth on it's axis, so that once every rotation, one side of the planet could be light, while the other side is dark. [also extrapolated from Job 38:12-13] 5 God referred to the period of light hours as “daytime”, and referred to the period of the hours of darkness as “nighttime.”

And these events marked the end of the first age, and the beginning of the second.
.

Here are my general comments, and why that interpretation does not work:

Comment #1:

In Genesis 1:1 it is said:

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

We know that God according to Theology has no beginning, He has always been God from Beginning that has no beginning and shall be God to end that has no end. Moreover, according to theology, there is No change in God. If we imagine a point that God did not have a creation, and that His creation has a 'Beginning' that means that there was a time God was without Creation, and that from Eternity He did not have a creation, and only at some point He started to have a creation. This contradicts with the fact that there is no change in God. God is 'Creator' and that is His attribute and has always been a creator. A creator without creation is meaningless. If we say God did not have a creation and then created that signifies a change, which other than the fact that theologically is not reconcilable, but is also illogical.

However, if as St Augustine and Talmud said, by creation is meant the specific spiritual creation that started with the generation of Adam and lasted for 6000 years, then according to this interpretation there is no contradiction, for that does not mean that God did not have a creation before, but it is talking about 'a particular world' that God begin to create with Adam. There were older and more ancient before this world, and there has always been. Like the Infinite Sun. Its Light is always with it, and always manifested from it. God's creation is a manifestation of His attribute 'Creator', which means His creation has always manifested from Him from eternity.



Comment #2:

There is a difference between 'interpretation' and 'addition'
Interpretation is to explain a verse by using other verses 'without stretch'. In another sense interpretation means if a word in a verse can have multiple meanings, to choose the right meaning. For example you said 'Morning' can mean when sun rises or it means 'Beginning of Age', and in Genesis means 'Beginning'. This is an interpretation. Another way of interpretation is by using another verse in Bible, for example it is written in Genesis 1:

"And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day"

One can use another verse to interpret this, for example in Peter:

"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (II Peter 3:8)
Therefore by referring to the above verse one can conclude each day corresponds to 1000 years.

My purpose of putting these is to say, interpretation must be done according to some rules. It is not like we can arbitrarily explain things to match to our own view.
For example you wrote:

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and the atmosphere was transformed and made translucent, so that the light from the sun could penetrate the clouds.


The part that I underlined, not even a single word of it is said in Genesis 1:3.
Not only that, but there is no other verse, to the best of my knowledge, that can be found in Bible and used 'without stretch' to show this is what is meant by 'let there be light'. Therefore this explaination is not 'interpretation' but it is an 'addition' according to imagination to try to make Bible say what you like it to say.


There are many other problems with it too, but I prefer not to go through it for now, untill you clear these two problems.

 

[captainbryce]

Here are my general comments, and why that interpretation does not work:

Comment #1:

In Genesis 1:1 it is said:

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

We know that God according to Theology has no beginning, He has always been God from Beginning that has no beginning and shall be God to end that has no end. Moreover, according to theology, there is No change in God. If we imagine a point that God did not have a creation, and that His creation has a 'Beginning' that means that there was a time God was without Creation, and that from Eternity He did not have a creation, and only at some point He started to have a creation. This contradicts with the fact that there is no change in God.

I don't believe it does. This is exactly what I believe happened in fact, and I see no contradictions here at all. God DIDN'T change when he began to create anymore than I changed when I decided to draw a picture of my dog yesterday. I am still the same person I was before I drew the picture, so why is it necessary that God changes after creating?

God is 'Creator' and that is His attribute and has always been a creator. A creator without creation is meaningless.

That is not entirely accurate. Scripture tells us that God rested from creation. That means he created (past tense) and now he is not creating. By your logic, God (as creator) should simply cease to exist because he is no longer creating. Creator is only ONE of God's roles in the universe. By saying that he is meaningless when he is not creating, you are limiting his nature to only one role!

If we say God did not have a creation and then created that signifies a change, which other than the fact that theologically is not reconcilable, but is also illogical.

But it's also untrue because it doesn't signify a change in God, only a change in his creation (from non-existence to existence).

However, if as St Augustine and Talmud said, by creation is meant the specific spiritual creation that started with the generation of Adam and lasted for 6000 years, then according to this interpretation there is no contradiction,

There is no contradiction (in terms of God's nature) with either interpretation. But there are MAJOR contradictions between that view and what science has already proven about the universe. It also contradicts what scripture says about the nature of the universe and our ability to perceive it. Therefore, that interpretation MUST be incorrect!

for that does not mean that God did not have a creation before, but it is talking about 'a particular world' that God begin to create with Adam.

There is no difference between my interpretation and Augustine's in this regard. God did not have a creation, and it IS talking about a particular world (in my case, a particular universe).

There were older and more ancient before this world, and there has always been. Like the Infinite Sun. Its Light is always with it, and always manifested from it.

The sun is not infinite. It was created in the beginning and it will die at the end of it's lifetime.

God's creation is a manifestation of His attribute 'Creator', which means His creation has always manifested from Him from eternity.

But that's not what the bible says. It says that it had a beginning, and that it will also have an end. That is the opposite of "eternity".

Revelation 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.

Comment #2:

There is a difference between 'interpretation' and 'addition'
Interpretation is to explain a verse by using other verses 'without stretch'. In another sense interpretation means if a word in a verse can have multiple meanings, to choose the right meaning. For example you said 'Morning' can mean when sun rises or it means 'Beginning of Age', and in Genesis means 'Beginning'. This is an interpretation. Another way of interpretation is by using another verse in Bible, for example it is written in Genesis 1:

"And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day"

One can use another verse to interpret this, for example in Peter:

"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (II Peter 3:8)
Therefore by referring to the above verse one can conclude each day corresponds to 1000 years.

But that would be a faulty conclusion because it belies the point that passage. It is not a direct corollary! The passage has nothing to do with the creation days, nor is it defining a type of day. If it was, it would say "A day to the Lord is a thousand years", but it doesn't. The "as" in the verse indicates that it is merely an analogy (a simile or figure of speech) between what we perceive as a short period of time, verse God's perception of time (which is infinite). Further proof of this is contained in this parallel scripture.

Psalm 90:4 (King James Version)
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

A watch in the night is less than a day. They are two different measurements of time. Yet they are both relatively short periods of time that we humans experience. And that is why each are contrasted with a long period of time that we could experience (a thousand years). Therefore, the scripture is not defining a day to equal 1,000 years anymore than it is defining a nightwatch to be 1,000 years. Furthermore, interpreting God experiencing the passage of "time" by a measure that humans would experience it would be contradicting what scripture tells us of his nature. God is eternal and exists outside of time. The scripture tells us that there is no difference between 1000 years and 1 day to God. Nor would there be a difference between 1 billion years and 1 nanosecond, because God is eternal.

My purpose of putting these is to say, interpretation must be done according to some rules. It is not like we can arbitrarily explain things to match to our own view.
For example you wrote:

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and the atmosphere was transformed and made translucent, so that the light from the sun could penetrate the clouds.


The part that I underlined, not even a single word of it is said in Genesis 1:3.

That's true it isn't. Nor does it have to be. Because we can extrapolate what the text is implying by looking at the other creation texts in scripture. They all have to be read consistently with each other, otherwise the bible contradicts itslef.

Not only that, but there is no other verse, to the best of my knowledge, that can be found in Bible and used 'without stretch' to show this is what is meant by 'let there be light'.

Then evidently, you have not found the book of Job.

There is no "stretching" required because the book of Job (which is actually the oldest book of the bible and predates the writing of Genesis by nearly a century) also has an account of creation. Chapter 38 has God speaking to Job and asking him in verse 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?". He then goes on to elaborate on how he did this.

Job 38:9
when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,

Genesis tells us that in the beginning, the earth was dark, but Job tells us WHY the earth was dark in the beginning. It clearly says that the atmosphere was wrapped in thick with clouds, implying that this blocked out the light of the sun. And this is also consistent with what science tells us about primordial earth billions of years ago.

Therefore this explaination is not 'interpretation' but it is an 'addition' according to imagination to try to make Bible say what you like it to say.

There are no additions. There is no imagination required. It says it right there in black and white. One creation text elaborating on the other. Both of them painting the complete picture!

There are many other problems with it too, but I prefer not to go through it for now, untill you clear these two problems.

Well, whenever you want get around to it, let me know.

Cheers!

 

[dantech]

Just a quick side note... why is it okay that God created the earth and everything in it, but not acceptable that living plants existed on the third day since they didn't get enough sun...

Couldn't a God who created the universe be able to create an already living tree, even without any light at all? Flawed logic...

 

[captainbryce]

Just a quick side note... why is it okay that God created the earth and everything in it, but not acceptable that living plants existed on the third day since they didn't get enough sun...

It would be okay IF scripture indicated that this is in fact what happened, or led the reader to believe that life developed and propagated through unnatural processes. But the laws of physics were established "in the beginning" along with everything else in the universe. If God creates plants on day three, then logic suggests that he also created plants that grow and reproduce according to the laws of physics that he established in the beginning, not plants that grow "magically" irrespective of his established laws of physics. And IF the first plants and trees were "magical", then scripture should directly support that hypothesis. But there is nothing in the text to suggest that these plants grew magically or had any supernatural properties.

Couldn't a God who created the universe be able to create an already living tree, even without any light at all? Flawed logic...

It's not flawed logic because the question isn't what CAN God do, it's what DID God do.

Genesis 1:11 (King James Version)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:11 (New International Version)
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

Genesis 1:11 (New Living Translation)
Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened.

God did not plant fully grown plants and trees. The scripture tells us that plants "sprouted" from the ground, grew to maturity, and produced seeds and fruit after their own kind. This describes a naturalistic process, and there is no scriptural evidence that these plants were "special" compared to any other plants that grow naturally today. There are no plants that grow to maturity without light, and there are no plants that produce seeds and offspring in less than 24 hours. Such plants would violate the laws of physics as we know them. Therefore, if the Earth "brought forth" grass, plants and trees, and these plants "produced" seeds and fruits, and the offspring of such plants are of the "same kind" today as the originals were, then it is logical to conclude that the first plants did these things in exactly the same way that these processes work today since the law of physics don't change. Photosynthesis and TIME are both required for plants to grow (unless the plants are "special" in some way and this is indicated in scripture). Moreover, the ending phrase "and it was so" or "and that is what happened" is past tense. This means that the plants and trees not only grew to maturity on day three, but they also reproduced the same kind, in the same day as well. Again, such processes require much more than 24 hours!

For comparison check Genesis 1:24-25. It says that God created animals "according to their kinds" (e.g. they reproduced offspring on the same day that God made the originals). Your interpretation requires you to believe that a newly created cow got pregnant by a bull, then gave birth to a fully developed, live calf on the very same day. We know that this is biologically impossible if we interpret these days as "24 hour" periods. Therefore, the creation days must be long periods of time!

 

[james2ko]

Therefore, the creation days must be long periods of time!

I'm having trouble understanding the naturalistic process of creation you mentioned in post 52. Plants were created on the third day. The sun did not appear until the next day. If the "days" in Genesis were "ages" long, how did a plant grow to full maturity without sunlight for ages? Or consider this, plants were made the third day, insects on the sixth. How did certain specialized plants continue to exist for "ages" without their insect partners to pollinate them?

 

[captainbryce]

I'm having trouble understanding the naturalistic process of creation you mentioned in post 52. Plants were created on the third day. The sun did not appear until the next day. If the "days" in Genesis were "ages" long, how did a plant grow to full maturity without sunlight for ages? Or consider this, plants were made the third day, insects on the sixth. How did certain specialized plants continue to exist for "ages" without their insect partners to pollinate them?

Well, I kind of touched on this in Post #48 (or so I thought), but I'll try to explain my interpretation a bit more for the benefit of clarity.

I believe that sun existed on day one ("in the beginning") along with everything else in "the heavens". [Gen 1:1] Consequently, I also believe that light from the sun ("let there be light") could also be seen on Earth on day one [Gen 1:3]. You'll note that there is a time discrepancy from when God created the sun, to when light can be seen. The explanation for this is given in another creation account [Job 38:9], when it says that clouds wrapped the Earth in darkness. I believe that when God says "let there be light", he is transforming the atmosphere from opaque to translucent. This hypothesis is also reinforced by the fact that the creation of the Earth's natural water cycle is the very next thing God does [Gen 1:6-8]. At this point, the light from the sun can now be seen on Earth.

Some people believe that the "light" God is talking about is merely metaphorical, and not literal. They claim that it refers merely to "spiritual light" or something like that. There are others who say that the light was literal, but that it wasn't coming from the sun. They believe it was God himself that was radiating light. But both of these ideas are refuted by the fact that verses 4 and 5 go on to say that God "separates" the light to establish day and night. That can only mean that the light is "literal", and that it is coming from an external source that is illuminating the planet on one side, and allowing darkness to exist on the other side.

However, even though the sun exists at this point, and light from the sun can be seen, an observer on Earth would still not be able to see the sources of that light (sun, moon or stars) because it was still cloudy. In verse 14, God says "let there be" the lights to distinguish day from night. It doesn't say he "created" anything new, he merely allowed them to be seen for the first time. I believe this represents a second transformation of the cloudy atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Nothing is created on day 4, however from this day on, an observer on the Earth would be able to observe the sun, moon and stars that were responsible for producing the light for the first time. And the very next verse explains why that is important, ("Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years."). Then the verse after that explains the function of the two great lights. The sun governs the day, and the moon governs the night. In my judgement, this verse alone proves that light that existed on day one MUST have been coming from the sun. Because the scripture specifically describes the sun's role as governing the day. Since day and night existed on day 1, then the sun must have also existed (because that's how we get day and night).

With regard to the plants being able to grow and reproduce, all they actually needed was the "light" from the sun (that was already shining on day 1) for photosynthesis. And anyone with an aeroponics or hydroponics lab knows that they don't actually even need sunlight (artificial light works just as well). Plants don't have eyes to see with, nor do they require lights in the sky to mark days, years and seasons. Only people and animals need those things. Therefore, plants could have existed as early as day 3 because they already had light. And what was the very next thing that God did after allowing the sun, moon and stars to be seen? He created animals!

Regarding the lack of insects on day 3, it is entirely possible that the vegetation that sprouted initially reproduced through a process called Anemophily (wind pollination) along with Hydrophily (pollination by water). This is considerably more likely if the winds and waters on early earth were "raging", which we have every reason to believe they were.

 

[james2ko]

However, even though the sun exists at this point, and light from the sun can be seen, an observer on Earth would still not be able to see the sources of that light (sun, moon or stars) because it was still cloudy. In verse 14, God says "let there be" the lights to distinguish day from night. It doesn't say he "created" anything new, he merely allowed them to be seen for the first time. I believe this represents a second transformation of the cloudy atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Nothing is created on day 4, however from this day on, an observer on the Earth would be able to observe the sun, moon and stars that were responsible for producing the light for the first time. And the very next verse explains why that is important, ("Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years."). Then the verse after that explains the function of the two great lights. The sun governs the day, and the moon governs the night. In my judgement, this verse alone proves that light that existed on day one MUST have been coming from the sun. Because the scripture specifically describes the sun's role as governing the day. Since day and night existed on day 1, then the sun must have also existed (because that's how we get day and night).

Yes there are plants that can survive with very little sunlight. But what about the long list of species requiring direct sunlight for 6-8 hrs a day to survive? Correct me if I'm wrong but according to your explanation, the atmosphere was made transparent on day 4, this means there was no direct sunlight until day 4. If these plants were made on day 3, your scenario suggests there was no "direct" sunlight [cloudy] for many years [ages], thus making these full-sun perennials extinct today.

Regarding the lack of insects on day 3, it is entirely possible that the vegetation that sprouted initially reproduced through a process called Anemophily (wind pollination) along with Hydrophily (pollination by water). This is considerably more likely if the winds and waters on early earth were "raging", which we have every reason to believe they were.

How do you explain the existence of plants that can only be pollinated by bees (melittophily)?
Pollination syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[captainbryce]

Yes there are plants that can survive with very little sunlight. But what about the long list of species requiring direct sunlight for 6-8 hrs a day to survive? Correct me if I'm wrong but according to your explanation, the atmosphere was made transparent on day 4, this means there was no direct sunlight until day 4. If these plants were made on day 3, your scenario suggests there was no "direct" sunlight [cloudy] for many years [ages], thus making these full-sun perennials extinct today.

The key question here is highlighted. The scripture does not say that EVERY plant was made on day 3. It says that the ground produced vegetation on day 3. I'm not a botanist so I can't tell you exactly how many different kinds (or what percentage) of plant-life here on earth requires "direct sunlight", or even what constitutes "direct sunlight" (since the phrase is somewhat subjective). I know that photosynthesis still occurs even on cloudy days (just at a slower rate), because the suns rays (various wavelengths) do penetrate clouds. Also, some plants and grasses require less sunlight than others, and I know that most of the plants which require cultivation (garden plants that produce vegetables) require more direct sunlight than other plants. But this is sort of addressed in Genesis 2 when God plants a garden that man has to work. It seems clear from the scripture that there are certain types of plants that require more attention (cultivation) than others. [Genesis 2:5-7; 15]

Requirements for Plant Growth

How do you explain the existence of plants that can only be pollinated by bees (melittophily)?

The obvious explanation is that these kinds of plants only propagated AFTER bees came into existence. Again, the scripture doesn't say that EVERY kind of plant that exists today was created on day three. It only says that the earth produced vegetation (grass, trees and plants) after their own kinds. The exact type of plants are not mentioned, but it is logical to conclude that it wouldn't have been the type that require insect pollination. Plants like animals evolve over time and new species come into existence from previously existing ones. Certainly, as Genesis 2 seems to suggest, there were some kind of plants that did not come into existence on day 3, but rather on day 6 AFTER God planted the garden of Eden (which man had to cultivate). [Genesis 2:8-9;15]

 

[james2ko]

The key question here is highlighted. The scripture does not say that EVERY plant was made on day 3. It says that the ground produced vegetation on day 3. I'm not a botanist so I can't tell you exactly how many different kinds (or what percentage) of plant-life here on earth requires "direct sunlight", or even what constitutes "direct sunlight" (since the phrase is somewhat subjective). I know that photosynthesis still occurs even on cloudy days (just at a slower rate), because the suns rays (various wavelengths) do penetrate clouds. Also, some plants and grasses require less sunlight than others, and I know that most of the plants which require cultivation (garden plants that produce vegetables) require more direct sunlight than other plants. But this is sort of addressed in Genesis 2 when God plants a garden that man has to work. It seems clear from the scripture that there are certain types of plants that require more attention (cultivation) than others. [Genesis 2:5-7; 15]

Just as you say it does not state "every" plant was made on day 3, neither does it state any plant was made after day 3. The events of Gen 2 are merely a summary of chapter 1. Gen 2:5-6 refer back to events just prior to the start of day 3. We know this because according to a well-known rule of Hebrew grammar, kol (H3605), every/any, followed by a negative, produces the sense of none (Exo_20:10, Thou shalt not do every work' = 'Thou shalt do no work . So according to this principle of interpretation "every/any plant of the field before it was in the earth" means 'no plant of the field was yet in the earth (RSV, NRSV). And neither was there man to till the ground. Man was made on day 6. Thus concluding Gen 2:5-6 had to refer to events prior to day 6. Gen 2:7 reflects what happened "on" day 6.

Certainly, as Genesis 2 seems to suggest, there were some kind of plants that did not come into existence on day 3, but rather on day 6 AFTER God planted the garden of Eden. [Genesis 2:8-9;15]

As pointed out above, the syntax seems to suggest these verses reflect God planting a Garden utilizing the same plant life brought forth on day 3. It does not specifically state what day he created the Garden. That seems to be an assumption.

The obvious explanation is that these kinds of plants only propagated AFTER bees came into existence. The scripture doesn't say that EVERY kind of plant that exists today was created in the beginning. It only says that the earth produced vegetation (grass, trees and plants) after their own kinds. The exact type of plants are not mentioned, but it is logical to conclude that it wouldn't have been the type that require insect pollination. Plants like animals evolve over time and new species come into existence from previously existing ones.

I think of it this way. If we assume all plants were not made on day 3, as you assume, we have to resort to assumptions in making sense out of the creative order. On the other hand, if we assume a day was 24 hrs in duration, no assumptions are necessary for the creative order to make sense.

 

[captainbryce]

Just as you say it does not state "every" plant was made on day 3, neither does it state any plant was made after day 3.

Not directly no. But it suggests that by virtue of the fact that the Garden of Eden had to be tended to by man.

Genesis 2:5
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

Grass, trees and wild shrubs do not need to be "worked", but garden plants and vegetables do. God could have created the type of plants that didn't need people before people were created, but not the type of plants that required people.

Genesis 2:15
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Certain plants require cultivation, while others don't. The plants in the garden would not have survived on day 3 because there was no man on day 3. God creates man first, then he creates the garden. Genesis 2 also describes the garden plants differently than the vegetation that sprouted on day 3.

Genesis 2:9
9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

There were no people to "see" the trees on day 3, nor did those trees require anyone to "eat" from them. But by day 6, the garden plants exhibited these features because there were people. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the garden contains plant varieties that did not exist in the wild, when vegetation first sprouted from the ground on day 3.

The events of Gen 2 are merely a summary of chapter 1. Gen 2:5-6 refer back to events just prior to the start of day 3.

That is correct. However, while Genesis 2:5-6 refers to events preceding day three, Genesis 2:15 refers to events occurring on day 6 (long after the first plants were made). Yet, man is still commanded to tend to the garden.

As pointed out above, the syntax seems to suggest these verses reflect God planting a Garden utilizing the same plant life brought forth on day 3.

How did you reach that conclusion? If the scripture says that "there was no one to work the ground", it would not be logical to conclude that God created the type of plants that required work until after man appears. Deductive reasoning would lead you to the conclusion that only after God creates man, and the subsequent garden that the type of plants which required work came into existence.

It does not specifically state what day he created the Garden. That seems to be an assumption.

There is no doubt based on the context of the rest of Genesis 2 that the Garden was created on day 6. According to Genesis 1, man was created on day six. According to Genesis 2, God created the Garden of Eden after he created man (on the same day).

Genesis 2:7-8
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Man was not created already inside the Garden of Eden; he was placed there after God planted it. If the garden had been planted first, why would God create man outside of the garden, only to put him in it right after? That doesn't make any sense!

I think of it this way. If we assume all plants were not made on day 3, as you assume, we have to resort to assumptions in making sense out of the creative order.

Why is that a problem? In fact, that's exactly what we should be expected to do, given our knowledge of science and history today (as compared to the ancient Hebrews). The bible wasn't written as a "science book", it is merely a record of events told from the most basic perspective possible. It is designed so that it would be equally understandable to the ancient Hebrews as it would be thousands of years later. We know more now than they did. Therefore we have to make assumptions about the order of creation that are not given in scripture, but that we can deduce based on what information is given, and that is based on what we know and understand today.

On the other hand, if we assume a day was 24 hrs in duration, no assumptions are necessary for the creative order to make sense.

Except that it is entirely false, self contradictory, and completely illogical. A creation day cannot be 24 hours unless you assume that plants went from seedlings, to fully grown, then reproduced in less than 24 hours with no direct sunlight. A creation day cannot be 24 hours unless you assume that animals similarly appeared, grew and reproduced within the same timeframe. And the creation days cannot be 24 hours unless you assume that God created man, planted a garden, watched it grow in a very short timespan, had Adam name every species of bird and animal (including the extinct ones), notice that had enough time without a partner to feel "lonely", put him to sleep and create Eve, then watch Adam wake up and say "At last". There is no rational thinking process that would lead someone to conclude that all of those events took place in less than 24 hours. It wouldn't make any sense! The creation days must be long periods of time in order for the order of creation to make sense.

 

[james2ko]

Not directly no. But it suggests that by virtue of the fact that the Garden of Eden had to be tended to by man.

1. That is an unwarranted assumption the Hebrew grammar does not support. Ignoring syntax to support a position is like putting one's head in the sand, don't you think?

There were no people to "see" the trees on day 3, nor did those trees require anyone to "eat" from them. But by day 6, the garden plants exhibited these features because there were people. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the garden contains plant varieties that did not exist in the wild, when vegetation first sprouted from the ground on day 3. Certain plants require cultivation, while others don't. The plants in the garden would not have survived on day 3 because there was no man on day 3. God creates man first, then he creates the garden. Genesis 2 also describes the garden plants differently than the vegetation that sprouted on day 3.That is correct. However, while Genesis 2:5-6 refers to events preceding day three, Genesis 2:15 refers to events occurring on day 6 (long after the first plants were made). Yet, man is still commanded to tend to the garden.

2. If the days were 24 hrs and the Hebrew considered, this very long assumption "logically" disappears.

How did you reach that conclusion? If the scripture says that "there was no one to work the ground", it would not be logical to conclude that God created the type of plants that required work until after man appears. Deductive reasoning would lead you to the conclusion that only after God creates man, and the subsequent garden that the type of plants which required work came into existence.

3. The same deductive reasoning (starting with a 24 hr day) plus considering something you have totally ignored---the Hebrew grammar of Gen 2:5-6 can be utilized to conclude all plant life was created on day 3. We must build logical conclusions by considering all aspects of the premise. In our discussion, the premise would be the Hebrew syntax of Gen 2:5-6.

There is no doubt based on the context of the rest of Genesis 2 that the Garden was created on day 6. According to Genesis 1, man was created on day six. According to Genesis 2, God created the Garden of Eden after he created man (on the same day).

4. There is lots of doubt. An assumption by its definition breeds doubt. Especially if one ignores Hebrew grammar and syntax. As you seem to have a habit of doing, unfortunately.

Man was not created already inside the Garden of Eden; he was placed there after God planted it. If the garden had been planted first, why would God create man outside of the garden, only to put him in it right after? That doesn't make any sense!

5. But even if we assume it was planted on day 6, the grammar does not support the creation of new plant species.

Why is that a problem? In fact, that's exactly what we should be expected to do, given our knowledge of science and history today (as compared to the ancient Hebrews). The bible wasn't written as a "science book", it is merely a record of events told from the most basic perspective possible. It is designed so that it would be equally understandable to the ancient Hebrews as it would be thousands of years later. We know more now than they did.

6. Because it requires one to ignore Hebrew syntax causing one to wrongly conclude the creation of plant life was split between day 3 and 6.

Except that it is entirely false, self contradictory, and completely illogical. A creation day cannot be 24 hours unless you assume that plants went from seedlings, to fully grown, then reproduced in less than 24 hours with no direct sunlight. A creation day cannot be 24 hours unless you assume that animals similarly appeared, grew and reproduced within the same timeframe.

And the creation days cannot be 24 hours unless you assume that God created man, planted a garden, watched it grow in a very short timespan, had Adam name every species of bird and animal (including the extinct ones), notice that had enough time without a partner to feel "lonely", put him to sleep and create Eve, then watch Adam wake up and say "At last". There is no rational thinking process that would lead someone to conclude that all of those events took place in less than 24 hours. It wouldn't make any sense! The creation days must be long periods of time in order for the order of creation to make sense

7. Perfectly logical when one concludes Adam and Eve were created as full [young] adults. Unless you are ready to admit God created them as infants and they somehow nursed themselves to adulthood. Thus we can safely conclude, God brought forth/created the plant and animal kingdom in the same manner. Then planted a Garden utilizing some or all of the same species created in day 3. Now I think that could be entirely true, non-contradictory, and completely logical, don't you?

Therefore we have to make assumptions about the order of creation that are not given in scripture,

8. Yet the 24 hr day scenario doesn't need any.

but that we can deduce based on what information is given, and that is based on what we know and understand today.

9. The information contained in the Hebrew of Gen 2:5-6 is that "all" plant life was brought forth on day 3--no "new" species on day 6. If you want to ignore the text, do so to your own detriment. My forum time is up. You can have the last volley. Nice chatting with you..

 

[captainbryce]

1. That is an unwarranted assumption the Hebrew grammar does not support. Ignoring syntax to support a position is like putting one's head in the sand, don't you think?

If I was ignoring syntax, then I'd agree. But where do you get off saying that the Hebrew grammar doesn't support my statement? It absolutely does.

Genesis 2:5 Hebrew Text Analysis

2. If the days were 24 hrs and the Hebrew considered, this very long assumption "logically" disappears.

But they are NOT 24 hrs, because that is not logical based on what occurs each day. There is no evidence that these days were 24 hrs in length. Therefore, given the context of everything that is described on the creation day, it is reasonable to conclude that they are considerably longer than 24 hours.

3. The same deductive reasoning (starting with a 24 hr day)

Why would we start with a 24 hour basis when there is no evidence to support that in the first place?

plus considering something you have totally ignored---the Hebrew grammar of Gen 2:5-6 can be utilized to conclude all plant life was created on day 3.

There is a difference between saying that something CAN be utilized in a certain way, and proving that it is in fact utilized this way. From the context of the passage we can deduce that it is NOT being utilized this way. If it was, why would it mention the lack of people to cultivate the ground? God didn't make people on day 3! Your interpretation absolutely depends on a 24 hour basis for the creation days, but the logical reading of the text does not support that.

We must build logical conclusions by considering all aspects of the premise. In our discussion, the premise would be the Hebrew syntax of Gen 2:5-6.

Again, WHY should we start from a 24 hr basis for the creation days? You're trying to deconflict the fact that garden plants could have been created before man by saying that the days MUST have been 24 hours. But when you do that, you create the paradox of plants existing and growing without the sun. Remember, the traditionalist, 24 hr interpretation also has the sun being created AFTER the plants. I've shown you why this interpretation fails, and I've also shown you why the 24 hr length for the creation days fail.

4. There is lots of doubt. An assumption by its definition breeds doubt. Especially if one ignores Hebrew grammar and syntax. As you seem to have a habit of doing, unfortunately.

I'm not ignoring anything nor have you demonstrated how the grammar and syntax is supposedly being ignored. Feel free to point something specific out about the grammar and syntax here that would lead someone to conclude that the Garden was created BEFORE man.

5. But even if we assume it was planted on day 6, the grammar does not support the creation of new plant species.

But the language and context DOES. The scripture plainly suggests that some plants require cultivation by man. It plainly states that man was created before the garden. And it ascribes different qualities to the garden plants than it does to the plants created on day three. The logical conclusion is that they are not the same plants. In order to support the theory that they ARE the same plants, then you should provide a clear scripture that implies this. The only possible reconciliation to this theory is making the creation days be 24 hrs. But that in itself is a theory of which there is no scriptural evidence to support. So it's circular logic!

6. Because it requires one to ignore Hebrew syntax causing one to wrongly conclude the creation of plant life was split between day 3 and 6.

Let's put this a different way. Taking Hebrew syntax fully into consideration, a conclusion about whether ALL plants were created on day 3, or CERTAIN TYPES of plants were created on day 3 CANNOT BE MADE. The Hebrew syntax does not support your interpretation any more strongly than it supports mine. That being the case, let's put syntax aside for a moment and look at the other evidence. That evidence being the phrases "and there was no one to work the ground" along with "and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" and "trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food". The first phrase is a qualifier because it refers to before day 3. The question is, why is that phrase relevant to plants that don't require cultivation? The answer is, IT ISN'T. Which means that it must also be referring to plants that DO require cultivation. The last two phrases refer to the garden plants of day 6 ONLY. Adam worked the garden, and the garden produced attractive trees that could be used as food. This doesn't apply to day 3 plants at all. Again, only by insisting upon a 24 hr interpretation can your interpretation even work. But the 24 hrs justification DOESN'T work, because trees don't grow in 24 hours (or 48 hours, or 72 hours). So whether it was day 3 or day 6, it still wouldn't work! The creation days must be ages, and if they are ages, then certain plant-life did not exist on day 3, but was created by God later on day 6.

7. Perfectly logical when one concludes Adam and Eve were created as full [young] adults.

How does that make such events logical? What does them being fully grown have to do with anything? Whether he was fully grown or not doesn't change the number of hours in the day, or the time allotted to fulfill and the tasks described on day 6.

Unless you are ready to admit God created them as infants and they somehow nursed themselves to adulthood.

You're missing the point. Adam was fully grown, yet he still would not have had time to watch the garden of Eden grow from seedlings to fully grown trees, cultivate the garden, name all of the bird species, all of the mammal species, and still have time to be "lonely". A 24 hr interpretation does not make sense given everything that happens on day 6. This is irrespective of whether or not Adam was "adult" or not.

Thus we can safely conclude, God brought forth/created the plant and animal kingdom in the same manner.

But we CAN'T conclude that because that's not what the scripture says. It in fact says the exact opposite! It says that the plants SPOUTED from the ground. They were not planted fully grown! It also says they (and the animals) reproduced (after their kinds). That does not happen in 24 hrs.

Then planted a Garden utilizing some or all of the same species created in day 3.

Again, there is nothing to indicate that in scripture either. While the scripture doesn't say God planted NEW plants on day 6, it does describe the plants in the garden differently than it does the plants on day 3. They required cultivation, the plants on day 3 did not. It only works if you presume a 24 hr interpretation (which is illogical). The logical interpretation is day = age, which means that the garden plants HAD TO BE DIFFERENT than the day 3 plants.

Now I think that could be entirely true, non-contradictory, and completely logical, don't you?

A 24 hr interpretation is not logical. Any other interpretation that is dependent on that view is consequently also illogical.

8. Yet the 24 hr day scenario doesn't need any.

Of course it does. It requires all kinds of assumption (all of which are illogical). I've already listed a number of them.

9. The information contained in the Hebrew of Gen 2:5-6 is that "all" plant life was brought forth on day 3

That's not what it says! It simply says that the land produced vegetation, and that such vegetation reproduced after its kind. THAT'S IT! There is nothing whatsoever given that indicates every plant species was created on day 3. You were very clever earlier when you said that the grammar and syntax CAN support that interpretation, but you haven't proven that it absolutely does.

--no "new" species on day 6.

It doesn't have to say that because it DOES say that God planted a garden with plant life that has different qualities than the plants that sprouted on day 3. The logical conclusion is that these are new species of plants. He uses the same process to create them (from seedling to fully grown), with one exception: he has Adam tend them. Adam wasn't required to tend to the plants on day 3 (they don't need cultivation). Therefore they are different kinds of plants!

If you want to ignore the text, do so to your own detriment.

I'm not ignoring the text, you are adding to it. The scripture doesn't say that ALL plants were created on day 3. It says that God created vegetation on day 3, then he planted a garden on day 6. Everything else must be extrapolated based on the context of the surrounding passages. My interpretation fits with that extrapolation, yours does not. It's that simple!

My forum time is up. You can have the last volley. Nice chatting with you..

Likewise. Cheers!

 

[Moishe3rd]

I have posted this elsewhere but, I forget where.
The simple explanation of Bereishis (Genesis) and Creation is that G-d's Time is Not Man's Time.

Our Great Rabbis have many different discussions and interpretations about just what a "Yom" (Day) is in the Creation but, the majority agree that G-d's Yom is not Man's "Yom."

The simple proof of this would be, of course, that the Sun and Moon were not Created until the fourth day.

And, the idea that G-d's Time is not Man's Time is reflected in the Tehillim 90:
"4. For a thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday, which passed, and a watch in the night.
5. You carry them away as a flood; they are like a sleep; in the morning, like grass it passes away.
6. In the morning, it blossoms and passes away; in the evening, it is cut off and withers."

A Day for G-d can be a thousand years; four hours; an evening.... or any time period that G-d chooses - including several billion years....