Seven Days

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I'll keep it simple to start with the ball in the court of the Bible critic. One misconception of many they have is that the Bible says the heavens and earth were created in 6 literal days (144 hours) followed by a literal day of rest, is this correct? Let's begin to explore that by asking them to explain why they think that is the case.
Catholics do not see Genesis 1 as a literal play by play scientific description of the creation of the world. We see it as an inspired book depicting deeper truths using a literary framework.

Catholics for that matter do not see Genesis 2 as a literal play by play scientific description of the fall of man either. Though we believe that Adam and Eve (our first parents) are historical beings. We also believe that the book narrates a historical fact using mythological literary devices to explain it. For example, the talking serpent is clearly a reference to Satan who tempted them. Adam and Eve hiding from God--and God asking them "Where are you" a reference to how sin damages our relationship with God and each other. God did not ask Adam and Eve where they were--becasue he didn't know where they were.

The point is that Catholics believe Genesis 1 and 2 narrates deep spiritual truths--not necessarily literal scientific history.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Catholics do not see Genesis 1 as a literal play by play scientific description of the creation of the world. We see it as an inspired book depicting deeper truths using a literary framework.

Catholics for that matter do not see Genesis 2 as a literal play by play scientific description of the fall of man either. Though we believe that Adam and Eve (our first parents) are historical beings. We also believe that the book narrates a historical fact using mythological literary devices to explain it. For example, the talking serpent is clearly a reference to Satan who tempted them. Adam and Eve hiding from God--and God asking them "Where are you" a reference to how sin damages our relationship with God and each other. God did not ask Adam and Eve where they were--becasue he didn't know where they were.

The point is that Catholics believe Genesis 1 and 2 narrates deep spiritual truths--not necessarily literal scientific history.
Ok.
So what are those "deeper spiritual truths" that aren't "necessarily literal scientific history"?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
What's the difference between a day and a literal day? Can't wiggle out of this one, pal. You specified "LITERAL day."
Not sure what you are asking for here, but I will try to answer. Here is the text:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Those last thirteen words seem to be the heart of it. It talks of a specific specific, not a day in a general sense. When someone says "it was the first day of school", or "it was the first day of summer" they are talking about a specific - a LITERAL - day.

And this was one LITERAL day that had a morning and an evening. The evening and morning were the divides between the day and the night, and their passing marked a day. One single day - a LITERAL day.

Read some more:

8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
...
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
...
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
...
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
...
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

This is the passing of time. God does something during the day, then evening comes, night passes, morning arrives. Each day/night cycle is one LITERAL day.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
It passed too slowly, reading your reply. A "literal" day would be one in which one can see the sun rise and then set. There was no sun (according to Genesis) before the first four days.
And yet there was daylight. There were mornings and evenings. Perhaps you should read it again:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

It is quite clear that the author believed there was day and night at this point, before there was a sun. To us, that is nonsense, because we know daylight comes from the sun. To the author it made sense because daylight came from God. t says so right there in the text. The sun was of less consequence (possibly this was deliberate because the Egyptians worshipped it); it is just there to adorn the firmament, to help mark time.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And yet there was daylight. There were mornings and evenings. Perhaps you should read it again:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

It is quite clear that the author believed there was day and night at this point, before there was a sun. To us, that is nonsense, because we know daylight comes from the sun.


To US? Speak for yourself. In the DAY of the Lord, there will be no sun. REV 21:23 and 22:5
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Semmelweis Reflex posted
I'll keep it simple to start with the ball in the court of the Bible critic. One misconception of many they have is that the Bible says the heavens and earth were created in 6 literal days (144 hours) followed by a literal day of rest, is this correct? Let's begin to explore that by asking them to explain why they think that is the case.

My response:
Several reasons....SteveB mentioned "yom"...24 hours....But I'll move on from that truth and present a scientific truth.

Halos....polonium halos....They show the hot magma didn't slowly cooled over millions of years...it was pretty much instant. As we all know polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world...they would not be there uness they formed quickly. Their half life is way to quick and must have been caught in an instant. Kinda like dropping an aka-seltzer into a glass of water and freezing the bubbles....the freeze must be quick or the bubbles like the radioactive decaying isotope....go away and would never form halos.

Simple enough?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
To US? Speak for yourself. In the DAY of the Lord, there will be no sun. REV 21:23 and 22:5
So how does this relate to the issue at hand, the light between day one and day four of the creation week?

My position is that the author believed that daylight came from God. Let's read the first verse:

Rev 21: 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

See, that fits my position. Here is the second:

Rev 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

And again, that fits. What this looks like is book-ending. The world starts illuminated by God, without a sun, and it ends the same way.

So what was your point again?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So what was your point again?

Simple. If you want to claim that the writer of Genesis was using the word translated as "day" to mean the same thing as when we use it today, you cannot do that since when we use the word today we are using a word defined by the earth's relation to the sun (sunrise, sunset) and those first four days there was no sun, according to that aforementioned author of Genesis.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Simple. If you want to claim that the writer of Genesis was using the word translated as "day" to mean the same thing as when we use it today, you cannot do that since when we use the word today we are using a word defined by the earth's relation to the sun (sunrise, sunset) and those first four days there was no sun, according to that aforementioned author of Genesis.
I am using the day/night cycle to mean a day. We understand that to be due to earth's relation to the sun, but the author did not. He clearly believed that was a day/night cycle before there was a sun. in his terms it is reasonable to talk about a day as a length of time - and indeed he does just that.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I am using the day/night cycle to mean a day. We understand that to be due to earth's relation to the sun, but the author did not. He clearly believed that was a day/night cycle before there was a sun.

But you cannot say that he clearly believed that that cycle was 24 hours.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
But you cannot say that he clearly believed that that cycle was 24 hours.
Everything in the text indicates he understood the day/night cycle to have started on the first day, and to have continued steadily thereafter, without changing or pausing when the sun was created. That is, he understood the first day, the second day, etc. to be the same length as the day on which he wrote the verses down.

Do you have any reason to think differently? Are you wanting to pretend that he believed a day lasted a thousand years back then, right up until god created the sun and pushed the earth into orbit around it?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Everything in the text indicates he understood the day/night cycle to have started on the first day, and to have continued steadily thereafter, without changing or pausing when the sun was created. That is, he understood the first day, the second day, etc. to be the same length as the day on which he wrote the verses down.

Do you have any reason to think differently? Are you wanting to pretend that he believed a day lasted a thousand years back then, right up until god created the sun and pushed the earth into orbit around it?

Nope. My thoughts on this are quite simple: Since the word "yom" in scripture quite often does NOT mean a 24 hour period, but rather an indefinite period of time, neither you nor I can give the precise amount of time that the author of Genesis meant when using the word.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Everything in the text indicates he understood the day/night cycle to have started on the first day, and to have continued steadily thereafter, without changing or pausing when the sun was created. That is, he understood the first day, the second day, etc. to be the same length as the day on which he wrote the verses down.

Do you have any reason to think differently? Are you wanting to pretend that he believed a day lasted a thousand years back then, right up until god created the sun and pushed the earth into orbit around it?
Never thought I would see the day (excuse the pun) when an atheist defends a literal meaning of what is obviously myth, and the evangelical defending a figurative or symbolic meaning. The world has gone crazy!
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Nope. My thoughts on this are quite simple: Since the word "yom" in scripture quite often does NOT mean a 24 hour period, but rather an indefinite period of time, neither you nor I can give the precise amount of time that the author of Genesis meant when using the word.
Where?
I see past, present and future tenses of the word, but those are not the standalone word, yom.

Eg, baiyom, mayomim, haiyom, etc...

But the root word, yom, is always H3117.
So, by all means please show me where yom isn't a 24 hour day.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Where?
I see past, present and future tenses of the word, but those are not the standalone word, yom.

Eg, baiyom, mayomim, haiyom, etc...

But the root word, yom, is always H3117.
So, by all means please show me where yom isn't a 24 hour day.

Is the Day of the Lord a 24 hour day? Does a noun have past, present and future tenses?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Is the Day of the Lord a 24 hour day? Does a non have past, present and future tenses?
From what I read in Daniel 9, it'll be the 1260th day following the abomination of desolation he described.
Then in Zechariah 14, He steps his foot on the Mount of Olives and splits it in two.

So, yeah. Unless you can show something that is clearly otherwise.

We read in Amos

Amo 5:18-20 WEB 18 “Woe to you who desire the day of Yahweh! Why do you long for the day of Yahweh? It is darkness, and not light. 19 As if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him; or he went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, and a snake bit him. 20 Won’t the day of Yahweh be darkness, and not light? Even very dark, and no brightness in it?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
From what I read in Daniel 9, it'll be the 1260th day following the abomination of desolation he described.
Then in Zechariah 14, He steps his foot on the Mount of Olives and splits it in two.

So, yeah. Unless you can show something that is clearly otherwise.

We read in Amos

Amo 5:18-20 WEB 18 “Woe to you who desire the day of Yahweh! Why do you long for the day of Yahweh? It is darkness, and not light. 19 As if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him; or he went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, and a snake bit him. 20 Won’t the day of Yahweh be darkness, and not light? Even very dark, and no brightness in it?

So do you think all the time a reference is made to the Day of the Lord it's talking about the same day, and one that lasts only 24 hours? So that's what we're all waiting for? One lousy 24 hour period?

And you didn't answer my question: Can a noun have past, present and future tenses?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
So do you think all the time a reference is made to the Day of the Lord it's talking about the same day, and one that lasts only 24 hours? So that's what we're all waiting for? One lousy 24 hour period?

And you didn't answer my question: Can a noun have past, present and future tenses?
Actually, I asked you to show me otherwise.

Is this your way of saying you're not able to?
 
Top