Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mihilz · 02-02-2007, 12:15 PM

Some creationists claim that the word day as used in Genesis refers to a much longer period of time.

I noticed that Genesis actually says that "and there was evening and there was morning - the first day" or "and the evening and the morning were the first day" etc. This sounds a lot like a 24 hour period to me!

Can it really be this simple to prove the day-age creationists wrong?

Gorit Maqueda · 02-02-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mihilz

Some creationists claim that the word day as used in Genesis refers to a much longer period of time.

I noticed that Genesis actually says that "and there was evening and there was morning - the first day" or "and the evening and the morning were the first day" etc. This sounds a lot like a 24 hour period to me!

Can it really be this simple to prove the day-age creationists wrong?

No. If a day can be understood to last a thousand years, an evening will last, say, something between a couple of hours and 999 years.

Mihilz · 02-02-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorit Maqueda

No. If a day can be understood to last a thousand years, an evening will last, say, something between a couple of hours and 999 years.

What do you mean? How can a day be understood as 1000 years and an evening as 999 years?

Gorit Maqueda · 02-02-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mihilz

What do you mean? How can a day be understood as 1000 years and an evening as 999 years?

When I fell in love, the first evening I spent with her lasted only two minutes. When my daughter first fell in love, the first evening she spent with him lasted about 999 years.

John Kesler · 02-02-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mihilz

I noticed that Genesis actually says that "and there was evening and there was morning - the first day" or "and the evening and the morning were the first day" etc. This sounds a lot like a 24 hour period to me!Can it really be this simple to prove the day-age creationists wrong?

Yes, it is that simple. For good measure, you can look at the Sabbath command in Exodus to see that a literal, 24-hour day is in view:

Quote:

Exodus 20: 8-11:
8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God; you shall not do any work--you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

Quote:

Exodus 31:14-17:
14You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Yahweh; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

spin · 02-02-2007, 01:06 PM

The only reason why someone would contemplate the notion that a day is not a day is that they are unhappy with the implications of a literal reading of the text. What this usually means is that they have different world view commitments to the writers of the text and are trying to stretch the text to fit these world view commitments.

When a text says something you should take it on face value unless the text itself forces you not to. This means if the text you are dealing with talks of a day and says that it is a thousand years, then you can't read references to day literally. Yet, if the text says "day" and refers to "morning" and "evening" and "night" at the same time, you get the basic content of the term reinforced, ie the ordinary conception of "day".

We also must recognize that we are dealing with diverse texts that have been collected together at different times, first in the formation of individual books, then in the formation of book collections. This means that what is said in a different passage may not have anything to do with what is said in the passage under consideration.

A day is a day unless proven differently. The text indicates its content to the reader, so the reader must be able to divine it from reading it. The general rule is: read the text literally until you can't.

spin

Mihilz · 02-02-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Yes, it is that simple. For good measure, you can look at the Sabbath command in Exodus to see that a literal, 24-hour day is in view:

Thanks for the extra quotes.

Mihilz · 02-02-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The only reason why someone would contemplate the notion that a day is not a day is that they are unhappy with the implications of a literal reading of the text. What this usually means is that they have different world view commitments to the writers of the text and are trying to stretch the text to fit these world view commitments.

When a text says something you should take it on face value unless the text itself forces you not to. This means if the text you are dealing with talks of a day and says that it is a thousand years, then you can't read references to day literally. Yet, if the text says "day" and refers to "morning" and "evening" and "night" at the same time, you get the basic content of the term reinforced, ie the ordinary conception of "day".

We also must recognize that we are dealing with diverse texts that have been collected together at different times, first in the formation of individual books, then in the formation of book collections. This means that what is said in a different passage may not have anything to do with what is said in the passage under consideration.

A day is a day unless proven differently. The text indicates its content to the reader, so the reader must be able to divine it from reading it. The general rule is: read the text literally until you can't.

spin

Very well stated.

Zeichman · 02-02-2007, 04:51 PM

Having taken a class on creation myths in the near-east, I must plead for another category: science and history were not the goals of the Priestly author. Questions of reconciling with modern notions of "creationism" and "evolution" are, to say the least, an anachronism.

Mihilz · 02-02-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Having taken a class on creation myths in the near-east, I must plead for another category: science and history were not the goals of the Priestly author. Questions of reconciling with modern notions of "creationism" and "evolution" are, to say the least, an anachronism.

I don't think that anyone is trying reconcile the Genesis myth with any modern doctrine. I just want confirmation that Day-Age creationists don't have a leg to stand on. I find it incredible that any translation of the Bible shows clearly that the creation myth refers to 6 literal days and yet Day-Age creationists seem so smug in their beliefs.

View Poll Results: What do you make of the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1?
I'm a creationist and "day" means day	2	3.08%
I'm not a creationist and "day" means day	53	81.54%
I'm a creationist and "day" means age	1	1.54%
I'm not a creationist and "day" means age	9	13.85%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

02-02-2007, 12:15 PM	#1
Mihilz Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: England Posts: 158	Day-Age theory Some creationists claim that the word day as used in Genesis refers to a much longer period of time. I noticed that Genesis actually says that "and there was evening and there was morning - the first day" or "and the evening and the morning were the first day" etc. This sounds a lot like a 24 hour period to me! Can it really be this simple to prove the day-age creationists wrong?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2007, 01:06 PM	#6
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The only reason why someone would contemplate the notion that a day is not a day is that they are unhappy with the implications of a literal reading of the text. What this usually means is that they have different world view commitments to the writers of the text and are trying to stretch the text to fit these world view commitments. When a text says something you should take it on face value unless the text itself forces you not to. This means if the text you are dealing with talks of a day and says that it is a thousand years, then you can't read references to day literally. Yet, if the text says "day" and refers to "morning" and "evening" and "night" at the same time, you get the basic content of the term reinforced, ie the ordinary conception of "day". We also must recognize that we are dealing with diverse texts that have been collected together at different times, first in the formation of individual books, then in the formation of book collections. This means that what is said in a different passage may not have anything to do with what is said in the passage under consideration. A day is a day unless proven differently. The text indicates its content to the reader, so the reader must be able to divine it from reading it. The general rule is: read the text literally until you can't. spin

02-02-2007, 04:51 PM	#9
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Having taken a class on creation myths in the near-east, I must plead for another category: science and history were not the goals of the Priestly author. Questions of reconciling with modern notions of "creationism" and "evolution" are, to say the least, an anachronism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.