How long were the days?

puddleglum

Well-known member
One issue that people disagree over is how long the six days of creation were. Some people think they were literal 24 hour days and some think that they were merely long time periods of indefinite length. Which side is correct? Is it even possible that both views are wrong?

Sometimes the word “day” is used in the Bible to denote a long period of time. For example, the time of God’s judgment at the end of the age is called the Day of the Lord. And in Genesis 2:4 the entire creation period is called a day.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

But could the days of creation have been such indeterminate periods of time?

The first day is described in Genesis 1:3-5.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

The day included a period of light and a period of darkness. This day and each of those that followed it are described as consisting of an evening and a morning. It is clear that these were literal days, each one consisting of one rotation of the earth on its axis.

Does this mean they were 24 hour days like the ones we have today? That would depend on whether the earth rotated at the same speed then that it does today.

The worldwide flood in Noah’s time involved more that just covering the world with water. The fact that the water in the oceans once covered the whole world shows that the surface of the earth was much flatter before the flood. After the flood the continents and islands rose up so that they were above the water.

The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.
Psalm 104:8-9

Changes of this magnitude could have changed the speed of the earth’s rotation and thus changed the length of the day.

The earliest calendars that we have any record of are based on a 360 day year with extra days added to bring the calendar into alignment with the seasons. Why didn’t they simply develop a 365 day calendar to begin with? One possible explanation is that before the flood there were only 360 days in a year and the first civilizations after the flood retained the old calendars instead of making new ones.

To calculate the possible length of a preflood day I first found the number of minutes in the extra 5 1/4 days. The result was 7,560 minutes. I then divided this by the 360 days and got 21 minutes. If our days were 21 minutes longer there would be 360 days in the year and the earliest calendars would have been accurate and not needed any adjustments. It seems possible that the days of creation were actually 24 hours and 21 minutes long.
 
The worldwide flood in Noah’s time involved more that just covering the world with water. The fact that the water in the oceans once covered the whole world shows that the surface of the earth was much flatter before the flood. After the flood the continents and islands rose up so that they were above the water.
The bible, however, doesn't say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was worldwide. And it says that the flood height was only 15 cubits high, and was therefore just a local event which drained away like every other similar flood before and since. Which is why the flood had no effect on the olive tree from which Noah's pet bird plucked a leaf. And why the flood had no effect on Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) and their families who were presumably living outside the flooded area (Gen 4:20-21).

And the universe is billions of years old, since there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec, and is not less than 6000 years old as hypothesized from the first creation story in Gen 1 and the genealogy in Luke 3, and given that our aborigines arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was a girl.
 
Last edited:
The bible, however, doesn't say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was worldwide. And it says that the flood height was only 15 cubits high, and was therefore just a local event which drained away like every other similar flood before and since. Which is why the flood had no effect on the olive tree from which Noah's pet bird plucked a leaf. And why the flood had no effect on Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) and their families who were presumably living outside the flooded area (Gen 4:20-21).

And the universe is billions of years old, since there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec, and is not less than 6000 years old as hypothesized from the first creation story in Gen 1 and the genealogy in Luke 3, and given that our aborigines arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was a girl.

In Genesis 7:4, God said, "In seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” That certainly sounds worldwide to me. If the flood was local Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. God could simply have told him to take his family and move to some place outside of the area that would be flooded.

Jabal and Jubal were not Noah's brothers. They were descendants of Cain, whose descendants were all destroyed in the flood.

There is no evidence that the world is as old as you claim. Scientists who claim they have proof of its age begin their research by assuming that everything happening today as always been happening and that God has never sent a worldwide flood. All the evidence they find is interpreted in the light of this assumption. If you begin your research with a false assumption then all your results will be wrong. If you want to find out more about this, I suggest that you study some creationist sites such as answersingenesis.org.
 
In Genesis 7:4, God said, "In seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” That certainly sounds worldwide to me. If the flood was local Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. God could simply have told him to take his family and move to some place outside of the area that would be flooded.
But the KJV and the Hebrew bible say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family (Gen 5:26-32) was only 15 cubits high and therefore just a local event, which is why it had no effect on the olive tree, or on our aborigines who arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was born, or on kangaroos and sloths since they are not native to the middle east where that particular flood occurred.
Jabal and Jubal were not Noah's brothers. They were descendants of Cain, whose descendants were all destroyed in the flood.
But Jabal and Jubal were Noah's brothers and Noah's wife was his sister Naamah (Gen 4:22) since the genealogy in Gen 5 includes the genealogy in Gen 4 with minor changes in spelling and order. Thus Cainan=Cain, Mahalaleel=Mehujael, Jared=Irad, Enoch=Enoch, Methuselah=Methusael, Lamech=Lamech. Therefore the first person (the adam) listed in the Gen 5 genealogy was the grandfather of the adam listed in the Gen 4 genealogy.

And the only people who were drowned were all members of Noah's family, including his grandparents (Gen 5:27) and his widowed mother (Gen 5:31) and his aunts & uncles & cousins (Gen 5:26) and his brothers & sisters (Gen 5:30) and his other children & grandchildren born before and after Mrs Noah (Naamah) gave birth to triplets at 500 "years" old (Gen 5:32).

The "years" in Gen 5, however, are obviously lunar cycles of ~29 days and not solar cycles of 365 days. Thus Adam and his genetically identical partner also named Adam first became pregnant at aged ~11 years old and not a silly 130 "years" old (Gen 5:1-3) and Methusael was drowned at aged ~80 years old and not a ridiculous 969 "years" old (Gen 5:27), and Mrs Noah (Naamah) gave birth to triplets at aged ~40 years old and not an absurd 500 "years" old (Gen 5:32).
There is no evidence that the world is as old as you claim. Scientists who claim they have proof of its age begin their research by assuming that everything happening today as always been happening and that God has never sent a worldwide flood. All the evidence they find is interpreted in the light of this assumption. If you begin your research with a false assumption then all your results will be wrong. If you want to find out more about this, I suggest that you study some creationist sites such as answersingenesis.org.
So how old is Earth given the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old since there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec?
And there is not a skerrick of evidence that the universe is less than 6000 years old as described in the fantasy story in Gen 1 and the genealogy in Luke 3, given that the dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago and our aborigines arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was born.
 
In Genesis 7:4, God said, "In seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” That certainly sounds worldwide to me. If the flood was local Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. God could simply have told him to take his family and move to some place outside of the area that would be flooded.

Jabal and Jubal were not Noah's brothers. They were descendants of Cain, whose descendants were all destroyed in the flood.
Your other interlocutor has been regurgitating this claptrap about a local flood and Noah's brothers for the better part of a year and has been soundly refuted on a number of occasions, most recently here and in the posts that follow...

As for your own position, we are agreed that the author(s) of Genesis 6-8 narrate a worldwide flood and that the days of the Genesis 1 creation account were intended to be taken literally. We are not agreed, however, that the author(s) thought the earth's topography changed as a result (indeed, you are forced to appeal elsewhere to "prove" this) and we are not agreed that a conjectured change in the earth's rotation speed is pertinent to the discussion at all. The lunar cycle is shorter and more precise for keeping track of days so months alternated between thirty and twenty-nine days for 354-day years periodically adjusted through intercalation to realign with the solar year... you acknowledge this in your opening post and there is no reason to look beyond this practicality in trying to understand time measurement in the ancient world.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Your other interlocutor has been regurgitating this claptrap about a local flood and Noah's brothers for the better part of a year and has been soundly refuted on a number of occasions, most recently here and in the posts that follow...
Only in your dreams, given that the KJV and the Hebrew bible clearly say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high and drained away like every other flood, and why it did not affect the olive tree or Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) and their families.

And there's not a skerrick of evidence for a worldwide flood about 3500 years ago when the ocean level magically rose at the rate of 150 mm/minute for 40 days and covered Mt Everest with an extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water which magically disappeared within a year, given that there is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water on Earth.
 
Only in your dreams, given that the KJV and the Hebrew bible clearly say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high and drained away like every other flood, and why it did not affect the olive tree or Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) and their families.
I have no interest whatsoever in responding to your broken record. I will point out, however, that no one -- theist or atheist -- came to your defense in that thread, but representatives of both positions approved of my posts. Why do you think that is?

And there's not a skerrick of evidence for a worldwide flood about 3500 years ago...
And your point is what exactly? :unsure:

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
I have no interest whatsoever in responding to your broken record. I will point out, however, that no one -- theist or atheist -- came to your defense in that thread, but representatives of both positions approved of my posts. Why do you think that is?
That's because the bible clearly says that the flood was only 15 cubits high and doesn't say that it was worldwide. And because the false claim of a worldwide flood about 3500 years ago has zero credibility.
 
the flood which drowned most of Noah's family (Gen 5:26-32) was only 15 cubits high and therefore just a local event

Genesis 7:20 says, " The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep." If the flood was 15 cubits above the mountains the total depth was much greater.

The "years" in Gen 5, however, are obviously lunar cycles of ~29 days and not solar cycles of 365 days.

When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he fathered Jared.

When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah.
Genesis 5:15,21

So are you saying that Mahalalel and Enoch became fathers when they were less that five and a half years old?

So how old is Earth given the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old since there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec?

This shows that the universe is old but tells us nothing about the age of the earth. The Bible tells us that on the fourth day of creation God placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say that he created the bodies that produces the lights at that time. It is possible that he removed clouds that were covering the earth so that the sky became visible for the first time.

And there's not a skerrick of evidence for a worldwide flood about 3500 years ago when the ocean level magically rose at the rate of 150 mm/minute for 40 days and covered Mt Everest with an extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water which magically disappeared within a year, given that there is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water on Earth.

Your argument assumes that Mt Everest existed before the flood. Psalm 104:8 says, "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them." Before the flood the earth was much flatter that it is today. After the flood the parts of the earth rose up to form the continents that exist today.
 
Genesis 7:20 says, " The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep." If the flood was 15 cubits above the mountains the total depth was much greater.
That's just a false version since the KJV and the Hebrew bible say that the flood height was 15 cubits, and DO NOT say that the mountains or highest hills were covered by 15 cubits, let alone Mt Everest or even Mt Ararat.
When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he fathered Jared.

When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah.
Genesis 5:15,21

So are you saying that Mahalalel and Enoch became fathers when they were less that five and a half years old?
The original text may have been 165 "years" for all you know. But one thing is certain that Mrs Noah didn't give birth to triplets at 500 "years" old (Gen 5:32) and Methusael wasn't 969 "years" old when he drowned and that Adam didn't first became pregnant at aged 130 "years old (Gen 5:1-3)
This shows that the universe is old but tells us nothing about the age of the earth. The Bible tells us that on the fourth day of creation God placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say that he created the bodies that produces the lights at that time. It is possible that he removed clouds that were covering the earth so that the sky became visible for the first time.
That's just a fantasy story in a book with no more credibility than other creation stories such as the Dreamtime Stories
Your argument assumes that Mt Everest existed before the flood. Psalm 104:8 says, "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them." Before the flood the earth was much flatter that it is today. After the flood the parts of the earth rose up to form the continents that exist today.
I have no reason to believe otherwise. And there is not a skerrick of evidence to support your claim that Mt Everest did not exist 3,500 years ago, given that Pangaea split up about 200 million years ago, and Mt Everest was formed about 55 million years ago when the Indo-Australian Plate collided with the Eurasian plate.
 
That's because the bible clearly says that the flood was only 15 cubits high and doesn't say that it was worldwide. And because the false claim of a worldwide flood about 3500 years ago has zero credibility.
Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the first question I asked and you ignored entirely the second one.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
The Bible tells us that on the fourth day of creation God placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say that he created the bodies that produces the lights at that time.
That is incorrect... the sun, moon and stars are both created and placed in the sky on the fourth day according to the biblical text.

It is possible that he removed clouds that were covering the earth so that the sky became visible for the first time.
This is simply an attempt to harmonize the Genesis 1 creation account with contemporary astronomical knowledge... it can't be done.

Before the flood the earth was much flatter that it is today. After the flood the parts of the earth rose up to form the continents that exist today.
This claim was critiqued in my earlier post. I've noticed that you start a lot of threads, but post very little in the face of serious cross-examination...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the first question I asked and you ignored entirely the second one.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
And that's because nobody can successfully refute the fact that the bible clearly says that the flood was only 15 cubits high and therefore just a local event which had no effect on a nearby olive tree or Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) or kangaroos etc.
 
And that's because nobody can successfully refute the fact that the bible clearly says that the flood was only 15 cubits high and therefore just a local event which had no effect on a nearby olive tree or Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) or kangaroos etc.
Round and round the broken record goes... never anything new. Theists and atheists alike on this forum consider your interpretation of the biblical text absurd... that two camps at such poles from each other can agree on this should be a wake-up call of how idiosyncratic and untenable your position is. Yet here you are touting your intellectual prowess and that no one can allegedly refute you... embarrassing really.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Round and round the broken record goes... never anything new. Theists and atheists alike on this forum consider your interpretation of the biblical text absurd... that two camps at such poles from each other can agree on this should be a wake-up call of how idiosyncratic and untenable your position is. Yet here you are touting your intellectual prowess and that no one can allegedly refute you... embarrassing really.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Apart from you, which atheists and theists claim that the KJV and the Hebrew bible doesn't say that the flood height was 15 cubits?
And are they familiar with the English language?

Genesis 7:20 KJV -
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;
and the mountains were covered.
 
One issue that people disagree over is how long the six days of creation were. Some people think they were literal 24 hour days and some think that they were merely long time periods of indefinite length. Which side is correct? Is it even possible that both views are wrong?

Sometimes the word “day” is used in the Bible to denote a long period of time. For example, the time of God’s judgment at the end of the age is called the Day of the Lord. And in Genesis 2:4 the entire creation period is called a day.



But could the days of creation have been such indeterminate periods of time?

The first day is described in Genesis 1:3-5.



The day included a period of light and a period of darkness. This day and each of those that followed it are described as consisting of an evening and a morning. It is clear that these were literal days, each one consisting of one rotation of the earth on its axis.

Does this mean they were 24 hour days like the ones we have today? That would depend on whether the earth rotated at the same speed then that it does today.

The worldwide flood in Noah’s time involved more that just covering the world with water. The fact that the water in the oceans once covered the whole world shows that the surface of the earth was much flatter before the flood. After the flood the continents and islands rose up so that they were above the water.



Changes of this magnitude could have changed the speed of the earth’s rotation and thus changed the length of the day.

The earliest calendars that we have any record of are based on a 360 day year with extra days added to bring the calendar into alignment with the seasons. Why didn’t they simply develop a 365 day calendar to begin with? One possible explanation is that before the flood there were only 360 days in a year and the first civilizations after the flood retained the old calendars instead of making new ones.

To calculate the possible length of a preflood day I first found the number of minutes in the extra 5 1/4 days. The result was 7,560 minutes. I then divided this by the 360 days and got 21 minutes. If our days were 21 minutes longer there would be 360 days in the year and the earliest calendars would have been accurate and not needed any adjustments. It seems possible that the days of creation were actually 24 hours and 21 minutes long.
Most of the earlier calendars were based on lunar months not solar activity. The alternative view of the meaning of morning and evening is beginning and end. So another words whatever is meant by the word "Yom" (Day) had something like a definite beginning and end. Whether that is a rotation of the Earth I don't think it's derivable from the text. Other passages suggest that we are still living in the seventh day of God's rest from creation which would lend credence to the idea that the days are long periods of time with definite beginnings and endings. You will notice that respecting the seventh day we do not see the verbiage "and this was the evening and morning." So nothing in the text of Genesis gives us any reason to believe that we are not still living in the seventh day of God's rest from the work of creation. And the writer of Hebrews seems to affirm that explicitly.
 
Back
Top