Darwin's Beagle

I am engaged in an online discussion with a theist regarding the day/age exegesis of Genesis 1. I think it is ridiculous to think that "day" in Genesis was intended to mean anything other than a 24 hr. day.

He says, "Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Augustine, etc. (There are many more from the early church) None of them had any knowledge of an ancient earth, yet none of them took the days of Genesis One to be 24 hour days"

I have been looking at Peter Kirby's EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS website and haven't found anything that would confirm or deny it yet but it looks like a daunting task to go through it all. If someone is more familiar with their writings and can direct me to relevant references (if there is any) I would be grateful.

Thanks,

Darwin's Beagle

Malachi151

Actually, a better website for this type of research, imo is:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

And I think that you will find that at least Augustine believed that these were litteral 24 hour days. I believe that he says so in "City of God", but perhaps it was somewhere else.

I found what I was thinking on in City of God, but I'm not sure it anwsers your questions, but its a place to state. YOu can see that Augustine had all kinds fo absurd notions.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

S.C.Carlson

The question is anachronistic, because, in antiquity, the hours are fixed to the length of the day (e.g. 1/12 of the sunlight and 1/12 of the night). So regardless of how long the day was, there were always going to be 24 hours in a day.

That being said, some early Christians where fascinated by the day = 1000 years equation and used it to suppose that Creation was going to last 6000 years, then followed by a seventh period of 1000 for Christ's millennium.

Stephen

Darwin's Beagle

Thanks for the website. I was not able to find a direct reference to "day" as used in Genesis when I browsed it. When I get time I will go through it more carefully but if anybody can point me to a direct reference it would save me a whole lot of time and be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

GakuseiDon

This link from the Catholic Library website has quotes from early Christian writers, both for and against a literal 6 day creation:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Crea...nd_Genesis.asp

Philo also believed that the Creation account shouldn't be taken literally. The background here is that the Greeks and Romans believed that the earth was quite old; some even thought eternal, with the constellations gradually revolving around full cycle, and thus Socrates (for example) appearing again. So IMHO there may have been pressure on early Christian and Jewish philosophers to reconcile "creatio ex nihilo" in the recent past with prevailing "scientific" opinion.

Some quotes from the link above:

Steven Avery

Hi GakuseiDon,

This may be reading a bit more into Philo than what he says --

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...ilo/book1.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...-creation.html
Ancient History Sourcebook:
Philo Judaeus:
The Creation of the World, c. 30 CE
III. (13) And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement .. (discusses numbers)

(60) They (heavenly bodies) were also created to serve as measure of time; for it is by the appointed periodical revolutions of the sun and moon and other stars, that days and months and years are determined. And moreover it is owing to them that the most useful of all things, the nature of number exists,
(again .. discusses numbers)

Notice that Philo above explains why God created the world in six days, and that such time wasn't necessary for Him, while he affirms "the world was made in six days".

Later Philo goes specifically to "Allegorical Interpretation".

And in Jewish thinking allegorical interpretation is by no means ipso facto a denial of literal interpretation, they can co-exist quite harmoniously.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html
II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.

That is actually worded very nicely, and many YEC could agree with his ideas.

So while Philo emphasizes allegorical interpretation, and uses the phrase "great simplicity" for ideas that the world was created in time, I think we have to be very cautious in claiming for Philo's view..
"the Creation account shouldn't be taken literally"
which others might mistakenly interpret as if Philo's understanding was that each day was a gazillion years or an evolutionary epoch. More accurately Philo was simply showing how our view of time is a function, result, attribute of the creation and of the heavens. Astute.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

Isn't this missing the discussion? A "24-hour day" is merely a reference to a time period which includes one "passage of the sun" through the sky -- rather than some other, more extended, length (to suit one's desires to stretch it to be more scientific) as in the case of the OP's interlocutors.

Naturally, the OP is correct in the reading of Genesis which indicates that a day was one sun cycle, ie a period of 24 (modern) hours.


spin

spin

Which early Jewish philosophers are you referring to? Perhaps some "medaieval" philosophers, rather than "early"? Philo of course was stuck in the Platonic rut.


spin

S.C.Carlson

What is the Hebrew for "sun cycle" and how long was the "sun cycle" before the sun was created?

Stephen

spin

I see you persist in this divagation.

The writer clearly has an idea of what a day is -- let's call it an "archetype" --, as it has a morning and an evening, that which has been referred to as a 24-hour day -- not because the ancient writer thought about 24 hours, but because the modern reader would get the reference to that which can be measured by one sun cycle. You know what a day is even when it is cloudy and you don't see the sun, ie the sun itself is not necessary for the notion, but is an indication of the archetypal idea. In fact, the sun was created on the fourth day (to populate the light), yet the previous days still had mornings and evenings (ie daybreaks and sunsets). It didn't bother the ancient reader. The reference was clear.

Complaining about an attempt at clarity for modern readership seems a banale waste of time. Perhaps you have some point to make related to the OP?


spin