How were the days in the Genesis account to be understood?

[InvestigateTruth]

The creation verbs employed on this day are different than on 'day 1'.

But still I think the same events are repeated again in 1:14, as the light, day and night was already there.
Unless for some reason the light was turned into darkness after the 3rd day.

1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

I would say, since the fruits were already developing, then the seasons and years were already there, so, this event in my opinion is also repeating.

They signify that the atmosphere became totally transparent - such that the passage of time could observed from the surface of the earth, and prepared the way for higher forms of life (which were to follow) and allowed regulation for their biological clocks.

Well, I would say the atmosphere must have been totally good even during the third day, otherwise the trees would not survive. Because the air, oxygen, humidity, etc. and the temperature must have been all right and totally good for trees to give fruits.

So, I am not sure how "making two great lights" would be any different, since the atmosphere and light and all conditions were already good.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Also, when the first day started?

I think Bible says, the first day started the same day that the earth and heavens was made:

2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day
that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"

So, in 2:4, is the verb which is used for 'created' and 'made' different?


Also, in 1:1 says;

1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

So, it means that the heaven was already created in the begining.

However in 1:7 and 1:8 it again says, God made firmament which is heaven:

"And God made the firmament,.....And God called the firmament Heaven."

So, since according to 1:8 the Heaven IS the firmament, and since the heaven and earth were created from begining, then the frist day must have started from begining that the earth and heaven were 'created'.

 

[Bowman]

But still I think the same events are repeated again in 1:14, as the light, day and night was already there.
Unless for some reason the light was turned into darkness after the 3rd day.

1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

I would say, since the fruits were already developing, then the seasons and years were already there, so, this event in my opinion is also repeating.

The text is showing steady refinement and improvement in the earth's atmoshere.

“Day” Four: Genesis 1.14 – 1:19


And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years;and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth; and it was so. And brought forth God, two the luminaries great; the luminary great for the rule of the day, and the luminary small for the rule of the night, and the stars. And appointed them God in the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and saw God that good (it was). And was the mixing and was the breaking forth time the fourth. (Gen 1.14-19)

Well, I would say the atmosphere must have been totally good even during the third day, otherwise the trees would not survive. Because the air, oxygen, humidity, etc. and the temperature must have been all right and totally good for trees to give fruits.

So, I am not sure how "making two great lights" would be any different, since the atmosphere and light and all conditions were already good.

Trees and plants use CO2 and give off O2 (oxygen).

Thus, these early plants could function just fine in this type of atmosphere....however they needed to be around for a long time to prep the atmosphere for animal life which was to follow...

 

[Bowman]

Also, when the first day started?

I think Bible says, the first day started the same day that the earth and heavens was made:

2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day
that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"

So, in 2:4, is the verb which is used for 'created' and 'made' different?

Good observation.

Different creation verbs are employed.

The text is confirming the beginning of a new creation (i.e. the Universe), and the refinement of that initial creation during the whole '6-day' creation period...

Also, in 1:1 says;

1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

So, it means that the heaven was already created in the begining.

No.

It means that the heavens and the earth had a beginning.

They were not eternal...

However in 1:7 and 1:8 it again says, God made firmament which is heaven:

"And God made the firmament,.....And God called the firmament Heaven."

So, since according to 1:8 the Heaven IS the firmament, and since the heaven and earth were created from begining, then the frist day must have started from begining that the earth and heaven were 'created'.

This would be the earth's atmosphere, brother...

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The text is showing steady refinement and improvement in the earth's atmoshere.

“Day” Four: Genesis 1.14 – 1:19


And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night ... (Gen 1.14-19)

How would dividing between day and night have anything to do with atmosphere?

this division was already made before.
Note that, the verse says, the reason that the luminaries were let in heavens, was to divide between day and night.

If it was really about atmosphere as you say, It would have said that more clearly, with wording that has to do with climate, heat, air, etc...but it talkes about day and night.

But if it makes sense to you to mean atmosphere, let it be.

in my openion, literal interpretation, is not putting together the whole story logically.
I would say, spirtual interpretation would fit a lot better to the whole story of the 7 days.

But thanks for explaining.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. It means that the heavens and the earth had a beginning.
They were not eternal...

I see that the word 'beginning' is used in the verse. But that doesn't necessary indicate, a start point, that there was nothing at all, and then it started to come to existence.
Note that, the word 'beginning' is also used in the following verses for God. But that doesn't mean that God at some point came to existence. No, He always existed from beginning.

For example, if you consider the sun. The nature of the sun is to produce light. As long as the sun is sun, it produces light. If we say at some point, the sun wasn't producing light, then it couldn't be called sun anymore. therefore as long as sun is sun, it manifest light.
So, God is Creator, and God's existence always Manifested as His creation. If we say, God at some point didn't have any creation, then It means at that time he was not God anymore. Just as sun which has no light, can not be called sun anymore. So, this would be denying divinity of God. Now, this doesn't mean a static creation. His creation has been always improving and evolving.


1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Anyways, if it makes sense for you to say, at some point God didn't have any creation, let it be.

This would be the earth's atmosphere, brother...

I would go with Bible. I think I would prefer to use Bible as the key to interpret Bible, rather than my own imagination.

Thanks for sharing though.

 

[Bowman]

How would dividing between day and night have anything to do with atmosphere?

this division was already made before.
Note that, the verse says, the reason that the luminaries were let in heavens, was to divide between day and night.

If it was really about atmosphere as you say, It would have said that more clearly, with wording that has to do with climate, heat, air, etc...but it talkes about day and night.

But if it makes sense to you to mean atmosphere, let it be.

in my openion, literal interpretation, is not putting together the whole story logically.
I would say, spirtual interpretation would fit a lot better to the whole story of the 7 days.

But thanks for explaining.

“Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide”: In the original Hebrew, the verb hayah is introduced, and it is appropriate, therefore, to consider why.

Its introduction and usage here seems to require that we understand this passage to mean something more than merely the placing of the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky.

The use of the term "heavens" in Genesis 1.1 seems to indicate that the sun and moon and stars were created in the beginning and therefore were already in existence.

Verse 14 clearly assumes their existence, but now declares what the purpose of that existence is to be.

Their purpose is to divide day from night, and to be for signs and for the regulation of the seasons.

All living things require or respond to regulations of this kind; plant forms are obviously governed by the seasons, and there is considerable evidence that many living organisms like insects, birds, and even higher animal forms live by cycles regulated by the heavens.

This regulation encompasses migratory movements as well.

Verse 16 tells us that God brought forth “asah” the two great luminaries (i.e., the sun and the moon) to regulate the hours of daylight and darkness.

There is no mention of them being created at this time, for light as opposed to darkness was already distinguishable, as verses 3 and 5 indicate.

The appointment of these lights as signs comes only after they can be observed.

 

[Bowman]

I see that the word 'beginning' is used in the verse. But that doesn't necessary indicate, a start point, that there was nothing at all, and then it started to come to existence.
Note that, the word 'beginning' is also used in the following verses for God. But that doesn't mean that God at some point came to existence. No, He always existed from beginning.

Completely and utterly wrong on all accounts.

The compound Hebrew noun, shamayim wa’eres (heavens and Earth) as used only in Genesis 1.1 declares that the Universe was brought into existence exnihilo.

God did not have a beginning.

His creation did have a beginning.

For example, if you consider the sun. The nature of the sun is to produce light. As long as the sun is sun, it produces light. If we say at some point, the sun wasn't producing light, then it couldn't be called sun anymore. therefore as long as sun is sun, it manifest light.

Nope.

Suns do more than give light, brother. They also form planets via accretion.

Even when suns die, they become white dwarfs and take on a new role.

So, God is Creator, and God's existence always Manifested as His creation. If we say, God at some point didn't have any creation, then It means at that time he was not God anymore. Just as sun which has no light, can not be called sun anymore. So, this would be denying divinity of God. Now, this doesn't mean a static creation. His creation has been always improving and evolving.

Totally against the record of nature, and in total conflict with the Holy Bible, of which, you said that you accept as scripture - but your actions show that you reject...

[/FONT]

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Anyways, if it makes sense for you to say, at some point God didn't have any creation, let it be.

Again, you fail to even read the very scriptures that you attempt to buttress your faith with.

These verses speak of making things.

If everything was eternal, then it would not even have had to be made in the first place!

Use your head.

I would go with Bible. I think I would prefer to use Bible as the key to interpret Bible, rather than my own imagination.

Thanks for sharing though.

 

[james2ko]

You can verify for yourself that the plants mentioned on creation 'Day 3' do not warrant cross-pollination via insects, for their survival.
Thus...yet another fatal flaw in your 24hr day paradigm.

Would you agree the Yucca plant was created on day three?

 

[james2ko]

But still I think the same events are repeated again in 1:14, as the light, day and night was already there.
Unless for some reason the light was turned into darkness after the 3rd day.

1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

Remember the creation is to be narrated from the perspective of the earth's surface. Note the difference between the two accounts:

Gen 1:3-5 "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.​

In verse 3, God describes the creation of conditions permitting the light to penetrate the earth's cloud-filled surface. This made the surface of the earth translucent but not yet transparent. Similar to the difference of being in a thick fog during the daylight hours versus the evening. Verse 4 re-establishes the earth's 24 hr rotation on its axis described by the division of light [day] from darkness [night].

Gen 1:14-18 "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.​

In verse 14 (fourth day), God is being very specific about certain "lights" that became visible from the dry surface of the earth. These specific lights were created to serve "for signs and seasons, and for days and years."

On the fourth day, God made visual observation of the sun, moon, and stars possible from the earth's dry surface. Before this, the earth's cloud-cover did not permit an observer on the earth's dense cloud surface to see these heavenly bodies. God diminished the cloud-cover so that clear days would be possible, and thus heavenly bodies could be used to keep track of times and seasons.

The first part of verse 14 as well as 15-18 appear to say that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. The New King James compounds the problem by incorrectly beginning verse 16 with "Then God made," implying continuity of action. The King James, American Standard, the Revised Standard, and Young's Literal translations all correctly translate this verse with "and" which is consistent with the Hebrew.

Further, the Hebrew asah, translated "made" in verse 16, is in the verb form that denotes completed action. This means that the sun, moon, and stars could have been created that day or any previous time. Verse 1 clearly reveals these heavenly bodies had been created long before the re-creation week began. Therefore, the first part of verse 14 and 15-18 are parenthetical statements that indicate the sun, moon, and stars had been made sometime in the past. And in the last part of verse 14, God is simply illustrating for what and how we are to use them.

 

[Bowman]

Verse 4 re-establishes the earth's 24 hr rotation on its axis described by the division of light [day] from darkness [night].

​

​

Not 24hrs, brother.

The earth was rotating much, much faster during this stage of its development and continues to slow down even today. So...24hrs cannot possibly be applied on each creation day. You attempt to use science, and then you fail to examine the obvious science of rotational decrease via accretion.

Further, since you already acknowledged that the surface of the earth is the vantage point, then where on earth can you be when it is both evening and morning at the same time as declared by the text?

Again....not 24hrs.

The obvious conclusion is that evening and morning represent that the earth is rotating upon its axis and that it merely represents the conclusion of one creation stage and the start of another.

 

[james2ko]

[/indent]Not 24hrs, brother.

The earth was rotating much, much faster during this stage of its development and continues to slow down even today. So...24hrs cannot possibly be applied on each creation day. You attempt to use science, and then you fail to examine the obvious science of rotational decrease via accretion.

Further, since you already acknowledged that the surface of the earth is the vantage point, then where on earth can you be when it is both evening and morning at the same time as declared by the text?

Again....not 24hrs.

The obvious conclusion is that evening and morning represent that the earth is rotating upon its axis and that it merely represents the conclusion of one creation stage and the start of another.

Before I reply, please answer my question in post #89.

 

[Bowman]

Would you agree the Yucca plant was created on day three?

No....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

[/indent]The earth was rotating much, much faster during this stage of its development and continues to slow down even today.

Could you quote a source for this please?

 

[Bowman]

Could you quote a source for this please?

From NASA:

http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-scientist-jen-heldmann-describes-how-the-earths-moon-was-formed

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is where the bahai ba-garbage comes into play.


Use your head.


Don't you think you break the rules of the forum?

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling (Please note that these apply to PMs, signature lines, frubal comments, and visitor messages as well, if they are reported):
1)posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
2)posts that Target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, repeated blatant misrepresentation or continual harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

 

[Bowman]

Don't you think you break the rules of the forum?

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling (Please note that these apply to PMs, signature lines, frubal comments, and visitor messages as well, if they are reported):
1)posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
2)posts that Target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, repeated blatant misrepresentation or continual harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

No....

 

[james2ko]

Would you agree the Yucca plant was created on day three?

No....

Since you may have missed it. I'll ask you again, so then what day were the Yucca plants created?

 

[Bowman]

Since you may have missed it. I'll ask you again, so then what day were the Yucca plants created?

How would you classify a yucca plant?

 

[james2ko]

How would you classify a yucca plant?

Why are you asking me? I asked you the question. The burden of proof is on you. Besides, if you do not believe the Yucca plant was created on the third day, then surely you must have assigned it a classification and know much more about it than I do. Once again, on what day was the Yucca plant created, if it was not created on the third day, as you claim?