Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

[RickD]

From an article at Answers in Genesis:
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-cr ... -six-days/

Objection 2

According to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until Day 4. How could there be day and night (ordinary days) without the sun for the first three days?

Answer:

Again, it is important for us to let the language of God’s Word speak to us. If we come to Genesis 1 without any outside influences, as has been shown, each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word yom qualified by a number and the phrase “evening and morning.” The first three days are written the same way as the next three. So if we let the language speak to us, all six days were ordinary earth days.
The sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the first day of creation, God made light (Genesis 1:3). The phrase “evening and morning” certainly implies a rotating earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning earth, there can be day and night.
Where did the light come from? We are not told,27 but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates it was a created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on Day 4 to rule the day. Revelation 21:23 tells us that one day the sun will not be needed because the glory of God will light the heavenly city.

If the sun is not needed to make a 24 hour, or ordinary day, why is it that the time between the sun appearing in the same spot in the sky, from day to day, is 24 hours?
http://www.universetoday.com/47181/earths-rotation/

To answer the second question first, it takes exactly 24 hours for the Sun to return to the same spot in the sky, which would seem obvious. 24 hours is what we think of as being a complete day, and the time it takes to transition from day to night, and back again.

So, in other words, according to AIG, instead of the sun being the reason why the first 3 creation days were ordinary 24 hour days, God created a point of light, which wherever it was, perfectly mimicked the intensity of the sun at its distance from the earth. In other words, from where the sun is in relation to the earth, it lets off a certain amount of light. And that exact amount of light is visible at its exact intensity, in regards to the position the earth is in when it rotates.

So, we can believe what Ham and other YECs say. That there was some other light that God created before they say the sun existed on day 4 which perfectly mimicked the light of the sun. And we can also believe that since according to YECs, the moon wasn't created until day 4 either. But the moon and to a lesser degree the sun, both give the earth its rotational speed, which is the 24 hours that makes up Ken Ham's ordinary day. Is anyone else seeing how ridiculous the YEC concept of an ordinary day is?

Take the YEC interpretation of scripture, which defies logic and science. Or, take another interpretation, which is still valid under a grammatical historical hermeneutic, AND, doesn't defy logic.

So, we can believe:
1. The sun wasn't created until day 4. But there was a point of light with the exact size and intensity of the sun that did exist, until God replaced that point of light with the sun on day 4.
And God sustained the earth's rotating speed, by some means other than by the moon and sun, which sustains the earth's rotating speed today.
Or
2. The sun and moon were created on or before day 1. And the sun and moon are responsible, and always have been, for the earth's rotation speed, which gives us a 24 hour day.

And please know, that if one holds to #2, or something other than #1, it doesn't mean one ignores scripture, or takes science over scripture. It just means one interprets scripture differently.

[abelcainsbrother]

Learn the difference between the Hebrew words " bara" and "asah" because these two Hebrew words mean different things and every time Moses uses these words they are always in context with what Moses is saying but f you think or assume they mean the samething? Then you'll lose context of what Moses is saying.

Genesis 1:1" In the beginning God created(bara) the heaven and the earth." That word "bara"means God built it out of nothing. But you'll notice the word made( asah) in Genesis and this means to build out of already existing materials that had already been created,this is important to get what Moses is saying.This is why gap theorists believe God is restoring the earth and heavens to make this world we live in now.

Genesis 2:4 " These are the generations of the HEAVENS and of the earth when they were created( bara) ,in the day that the Lord God made(asah) the EARTH and the heavens."

This is in context and is Moses reiterating Genesis 1 when God made( asah) the EARTH and heavens,you will notice in Genesis 1 God is working on the earth first then works on the heavens,but notice there were generations of the heavens and the earth before this so the earth and heavens is very old and not young.

It was pointed out by St Augustine almost 500 years ago,before modern science and evolution that the first day in Genesis 1 does not start until verse 3 and Genesis 2:4 backs this up,but also you can start art the 6 the day and go backwards and write down everything God did on each day and see this.

Now read Exodus 20:11 " For in six days the Lord God made( asah) the heaven and earth,the sea,and all that is in them,and rested the seventh day: Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day,and hallowed it.

Now read Isaiah 45:18 and its the same thing with Moses notice the words create and made as you read it.

[Nicki]

Genesis 1:4,5 - 'God saw that the light was good, and he 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.'

So here we have actual day and night, and therefore evening and morning, before the sun was created. I suppose God could have been only figuratively separating the light and darkness (making them different, in other words) and calling them day and night before there really were such things, but it seems more likely to me that he would have just supplied the light until he made the sun.

Nicki,

You have to realize that the interpretation of the sun not being created until the 4th day, is purely a YEC interpretation. OECs believe the sun existed before the earth existed.

I was talking about within YEC since that's the topic - how it could work if YEC was true.

[theophilus]

YEC Disadvantages:

• Doesn't accept an "ordinary day" -- solar days do not exist until day 4 therefore a time period of 24 hours is superimposed which is also an acceptable variant found in the Hebrew lexicon (dictionary).
• Adds in a second light source for days 1-3 (for the light created on day 1)
• Sun not created until day 4 (a plain reading as understood by Moses and audience at the time would in my opinion lead them to believing the Sun as the light source.

God placed lights in the sky on the fourth day. The Bible doesn't say that he created the bodies which were the source of those lights at that time. Most YECs do believe this and as you pointed out that creates a problem. There is another possibility. The sun, moon, and stars already existed during the formation of the earth but the earth was covered by clouds or some other barrier that kept the full light from reaching the earth. On the first day the barrier thinned enough so light could reach the earth but the bodies of light in the sky couldn't be seen. This condition often exists on cloudy days. On the fourth day the barrier was removed so that the sources of light could be seen.

Most YECs are also YUCs; that is, they also believe in Young Universe Creation. I am among the minority that doesn't share this belief. (In fact I don't recall ever meeting a YEC that wasn't also YUC. Is it possible I am the only one? )

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -universe/

I don't believe the days of creation were necessarily 24 hour days. I think they might have been 21 minutes longer.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -the-days/

[Kurieuo]

YEC Disadvantages:

• Doesn't accept an "ordinary day" -- solar days do not exist until day 4 therefore a time period of 24 hours is superimposed which is also an acceptable variant found in the Hebrew lexicon (dictionary).
• Adds in a second light source for days 1-3 (for the light created on day 1)
• Sun not created until day 4 (a plain reading as understood by Moses and audience at the time would in my opinion lead them to believing the Sun as the light source.

God placed lights in the sky on the fourth day. The Bible doesn't say that he created the bodies which were the source of those lights at that time. Most YECs do believe this and as you pointed out that creates a problem. There is another possibility. The sun, moon, and stars already existed during the formation of the earth but the earth was covered by clouds or some other barrier that kept the full light from reaching the earth. On the first day the barrier thinned enough so light could reach the earth but the bodies of light in the sky couldn't be seen. This condition often exists on cloudy days. On the fourth day the barrier was removed so that the sources of light could be seen.

Most YECs are also YUCs; that is, they also believe in Young Universe Creation. I am among the minority that doesn't share this belief. (In fact I don't recall ever meeting a YEC that wasn't also YUC. Is it possible I am the only one? )

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -universe/

I don't believe the days of creation were necessarily 24 hour days. I think they might have been 21 minutes longer.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -the-days/

Welcome to the discussion Theophilus, I'm seriously glad you posted your beliefs.

If you accept that the Sun was created in the beginning with "the heavens and the Earth",
then your interpretation of Scripture seems in accord with a strict application of the "literal" historical-grammatical (HG) interpretative method.
You can therefore more strictly take days 1-3 to be truly ordinary days as it seems Moses intended for all days!
My argument therefore doesn't apply to you.

Rather it applies to the more suspect positions -- those positions that appear suspect under the light of a strict literal HG approach.
These positions are those that replace an "ordinary day" as ordinarily understood by the Hebrews, with a period of time (whether that's an "age" or "24 hours" as I previously reasoned).

Now some may accuse ye of reading too much modern science into the text , that is, in depending upon scientific knowledge of what we know about Earth's early atmosphere. But, it seems to me you also have an interpretation that at least passes a strict application of the historical-grammatical method. Even perhaps more-so than my own Sabbatical approach.

AND, why not draw from what we understand externally about the world to illuminate the text?
Some appear to do this when using Egyptian theology (wrongly I believe) to interpret the Sun being created on day 4.
And with the canopy theory and the like being laid to waste by many YECs, such passages have proven difficult to understand and source of diverse opinion just within YEC circles alone.
So why not?

Note: I want to be clear that my complaint is not necessarily against a young earth or even young universe (Jac!).
I'm not at all trying hard to disprove YECism in the hopes of OECism (Jac again!).
And I'm not even out to try prove my novel Sabbatical interpretation (J... oh nevermind! )

What I am doing is applying the same scrutiny to the stock standard YEC interpretation using the literal hermeneutic (the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the text). This is a method that Jac and other YECs hold older Earth positions accountable to, like the Day-Age interpretation which trades on yom meaning a period of time.

This method of interpreting the text is interested in getting at what the original human author intended and audience would have understood.
And an "ordinary day" as intended by these people would have been understood as morning to evening for work, and then as Genesis 1 has it "evening and morning" to represent the end of one of God's creative work days in preparation for the next.

Under the scrutiny of HG, even if the Sun was created on day dot, if a YEC person says a day refers to 24 hours in the text then they're wrong! So to withstand the argument Theophilus, never refer to the days as 24 hours, but ordinary days. And if the Sun is there from the beginning in your interpretation than only you can claim the days are truly ordinary days as would have been understood by the Hebrews of the time.

You know, some might want to be more forgiving and say, "Oh but, you know, an ordinary day is 24 hours, so it's easy to see how..." NO! It's not a matter of what we want. I'm using a strict HG method. What Jac claims to be his own interpretative rules! And that means sola HG. Let an ordinary day just be an ordinary day and for Israel that requires the Sun. Plain and simple! We also have the evening and morning refrain, which (and this doesn't support Day-Age) under a surface-level reading suggests God worked during the day like we do, and then "rested" overnight.

We cannot just refer to days as 24 hours without a Sun, and then claim such a position passes all strictness of interpretation as many YECs claim. So one cannot even refer to them as ordinary 24 hour days, which is smuggling in 24 hours and colouring the definition of "ordinary days" to be something that merely represents a property of an ordinary day as we're familiar with. Not to mention the "supernatural days" required on days 1-3, and I'm serious here -- what else could they be called if God is a replacement light-source for the Sun?

So Theophilus, if you accept that the Sun was created in the beginning of that the heavens and the Earth,
then your interpretation of Scripture is more in accord to a strict application of the "literal" historical-grammatical interpretative method.
Your interpretation I think is perhaps the most strictly valid HG interpretation.
Whether that means it is correct, is a matter I'm not concerned about here.

Again, to repeat myself, my argument only applies more to those who accept the more popular YEC interpretation of the Sun being created on day 4 with an alternate source of light to have days on days 1-3. Personally, I see that such an interpretation strays so much from a literal hermeneutic that my jaw drops whenever someone claims such an interpretation is more valid than Day-Age -- and indeed the only valid interpretation (the true reason why I started this thread!).

[Nicki]

Hmm, I still don't see that there's that much of a problem. What I was saying before was that people of Moses' time and before and after knew how long a day was, and God could have known before he made the sun how long a day was going to be. So in YEC, six of those is just how long God took to make everything. I don't think God has to have the sun around to tell him how long an Earth day is (or will be).

[Kurieuo]

I don't see a problem with taking the referent of yom to be a period of time either in Genesis 1.

However, when applying a particular methodology with interpretation, what we think doesn't matter except perhaps in application. Interpreting is a science. There are rules to follow. And the argument from YEC quarters at a higher theological level is something like this:

• 1. Correct Scriptural interpretations need to adhere to literal (historical-grammatical) rules of interpretation when we come to Scripture
  (which is understanding words and the text as the human author and readers of the time did would have plainly understood).
  
  2. Using HG methods, yom cannot be understood as anything other than an ordinary day.
  (YEC Scriptural arguments generally being that [1] an ordinal is beside day is used in conjunction throughout Scripture as only an ordinary day, and [2] the "evening and morning" phrase clearly evidences and ordinary day if there was any doubt. YEC also challenge that Day-Age requires knowledge of modern science, something that Moses and readers of the time would not have known about and it therefore fails what is so central to HGism with the writer and audience understanding).
  
  3. Therefore, the Day-Age interpretation is incorrect and not Scriptural because it fails the obey strict Historical-Grammatical methods.

Now, it just so happens, for all the arguments previously mentioned in this thread, certain YEC interpretations also fail to satisfy this method. Such interpretations warp the meaning of an ordinary day.

On a personal level, I'm happy to entertain their interpretation (with Sun created on day 4) as a viable Scriptural interpretation, but my reasoning is not because it is a completely satisfactory HG interpretation.

Theophilus however, dodges any argument to be made, through his less popular YEC interpretation.
So if young earth in persuasion, believing the Sun was created in the beginning seems to me a much stronger HG position.

As an added note, I'm beating a drum on strictly applying the historical-grammatical method, because that is what YECs like Jac continually say should be the method with which any interpretation of Scripture be justified. That said, I'd agree there is great merit to using it.

[Jac3510]

Or you can recognize, on the HGM, that the sun is not necessary for there to be morning or evening. God made that on the first day when He made it independently of the sun. You can recognize that, in Genesis 1, following the HGM, the sun marks days. It signifies them. It does not determine them. Therefore, ordinary days are just that. Ordinary days--sun or no sun.

[Kurieuo]

On the HGM, you say the Sun is not necessary for there to be a morning and evening?
I think such it quite central so would be interested in further explanation.

The Sun isn't created on Day 1, but very arguably prior in the "heavens and the earth".
God's speaking into existence things begins at v.3. It seems evident to me that is when the creative day begins.
And again, you can't have an ordinary day without beginning which minimally requires an earth and v.2 sets the stage for.

Sun marks days sure, it's generally what we experience in a sunrise and sunset.
I'm sure if you ask someone to describe an ordinary day what they'll say. Why not poll a few random people?
We experience them every day. I think it is clear in Scripture what the Hebrews would have understood.
Especially when God says, "let there be light" and then it ends "evening and morning, one day".

There's just no getting around it what is meant by an ordinary day -- morning to evening and evening to morning.
If it's just shining an alternative light source, well the fish in my fish tank have experienced two mornings and evenings today for I switched the fish tank light on and off twice. But, seriously now, who really would believe that?

An ordinary day to the audience back then, is the Sun appearing to move through the sky whether or not such can be seen due to clouds or perhaps an eclipse. You mentioned earlier days were an Earth rotation, and I think we can both agree they would not have understood that.
So if we simply focus on a plain reading of the text (you don't know how strange it feels to be saying that to you of all people!), then the text speaks for itself and reveals it all.

If you still don't see it, then I think your HG application may be clouded by subjectivity.
You've locked yourself into a particular interpretation that you've adopted from elsewhere and won't entertain even a weakness? You know, I've entertained here weaknesses too for Day-Age interpretation, heck even my own cherished Sabbatical. Look at what I conceded to Theophilus, that his interpretation is the one the most strictly satisfies the HG method. Clearly, I don't have much motivation beyond wanting to look at the text objectively with HG precision.

We may just need to disagree here.
But, the fact I'm not the only one who sees it, but Theophilus quickly got it -- he's more on your side as a YEC right?
RickD got it and even started his own exchanges. I'm sure other people are understanding to, but they're wondering why such strictness.
And I'm sure you know why I'm being strict, because the HG method doesn't let us just inject the meaning we want into the text.

Under the most strict application of HGM,
Day-Agers can't just insert unspecific periods of time and YECs can't just insert 24 hour periods of time.
Neither can an alternative source of light be invented. There's just nothing in the text that says such is God Himself.
Sorry Jac, I'm just using the same strictness that you've applied to others. And I think it's more clear under interpretations invoking a supernatural light source.

BUT, nonetheless, it's an easy save if one places the Sun in the beginning with "the heavens and the earth".
Anyway, I think I've made it as clear as I can. If you still don't see it, then I'll just rest my case.
We agree on many other things so and there are larger issues to fry soo...

[abelcainsbrother]

Interesting discussion but I'm not sure we are really going by the HGM,only those in the know seem to.And I say if you are following the HGM and must ignore what nature God created reveals? Then something is wrong with the HGM as God created nature and so his word should not contradict it and won't.Sure there may have been a time when what nature reveals was not known,but it is now.It just does'nt seem right to have to ignore what nature reveals in order to believe God's word.

The problem today is not what nature reveals,but how what it reveals is interpreted and this is the real problem we face today and it comes down to how we choose to interpret what nature reveals and this includes science that has came about because of evolution.The bible does not tell us how old the heavens and earth are so we must understand what nature reveals while understanding the influence evolution has had on science and the age of the universe.It very well could be that the universe is not as old as science says today 10 billion years but I don't think it is 6-10,000 years old either,just the amount of death and extinction shows this.

[RickD]

I can see a conversation between a YEC and an OEC, going like this:


Mr. OEC: I believe yom can be interpreted as a long, finite period of time, in Genesis 1. Please tell me why I'm wrong.


Mr. YEC: Because yom interpreted as a long period of time, is only arrived at by reading into scripture(eisegesis). When reading scripcha(my Ken Ham Aussie accent) plainly, yom must mean an ordinary day.

Mr. OEC: Ok. Then by "ordinary day", you mean the time it takes for the earth to rotate completely around on its axis one time, which is about 24 hours? Or, from the perspective of someone on the surface of the earth, the time from sundown to sundown?

Mr. YEC: I would possibly leave out the part about the earth rotating once on its axis, because I'm not sure Moses would've known the earth rotated on its axis. But other than that, an ordinary day would be 24 hours, or the time from one sunset to the next sunset. Or, one sunrise to the next sunrise.

Mr. OEC: Wait, you said we have to read scripture plainly, and now you're saying we have to take into consideration, what the author meant? I can see the plain reading part, but to know what the author actually meant, we need to go beyond the plain reading, and do some studying.

But, let's put that aside, because it's not really pertinent to my point. Let's say I agree with your definition of an ordinary day. Next, I'd need to know when the sun was created.

Mr. YEC: On the 4th day, of course. Like I said, just read scripcha plainly.
Genesis 1:16-19 Nasb
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Mr. OEC: Wait, that doesn't say that God made the two great lights on the 4th day. It actually can be interpreted as, "God had made the two great lights..." Meaning, that they could've been made sometime in the past, but just became visible on the 4th day, from the perspective of the earth's surface.

Mr. YEC: NO, NO, NO!!! Stick to the plain reading, and don't read into scripcha!!!!

Mr. OEC: OK, fine. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. Then how were days 1-3 ordinary days, with sunrises and sunsets, if there was no sun to rise or set?

Mr. YEC: That's easy. God created light on day one:
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

The light was a light that God created until He created the sun.

Mr. OEC: But the text doesn't say that God created a supernatural light that exactly mimicked the sun, which caused sunrises and sunsets. A ordinary day without the sun existing, isn't really an ordinary day, is it? Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to read things into scripture that the text doesn't plainly say? It is clear that the existence of the sun is necessary for you to even have your definition of an ordinary day. Yet you admit that you believe the sun didn't even exist for the first 3 ordinary days.

Isn't it much simpler, and more logical to believe that the sun was created on day one. You don't even have to believe in long days. You can still have your 24 hour days. Doesn't that make more sense?


Mr. YEC: I couldn't believe that the sun was created on day one, because then I'd have to toss away my plain reading of scripcha. And if I threw away the plain reading, my belief would be no better than yours.

[Jac3510]

K, I think our fundamental difference is here:

There's just no getting around it what is meant by an ordinary day -- morning to evening and evening to morning.
If it's just shining an alternative light source, well the fish in my fish tank have experienced two mornings and evenings today for I switched the fish tank light on and off twice. But, seriously now, who really would believe that?

I tried to explain this in some detail in my first reply in the thread. I think (following the HGM) that you are unnecessary (and incorrectly) assuming that there has to be a source of light. Now, stay with me. I know that it's mindbending to imagine light not having a source. I think even AiG is wrong here, because they seem to think in terms of some alternate light source. They seem to think that there was another light source and that when God made the sun He then made it the source.

But all that's wrong. Just look at the text. What did God make on day one? Light. Notice what already existed. Darkness. Try very hard to forget your first grade science and just look at the world of the text. God makes light. From what? Nothing. What's the source? Nothing. He is. And this is very important: don't think of light as waves traveling from here to there. That is a modern discovery. Just think of light as the text describes it. Something that is created. It's just there. And now God separates the light from the darkness. He gathers all this "light" stuff over "here" and all the "darkness" stuff over "there." They are now opposite of each other. And in this gathering, God creates the first day. When the light is on the earth, it's called "day"; when it leaves and darkness is on the earth, it is called "night." A full day/night cycle is called "a day."

That's why your fish tank analogy doesn't hold up as "a day." It's not about a particular sources. It's about whether or not the (heavens and the?) earth have experienced a day/night cycle.

This why I've said repeatedly: the source of the light is completely immaterial. You don't need a sun or a sunrise to have a morning. You don't need the sunset to bring evening. All you need is the light, created on day one, and the dark, which was already there, to have a day.

So an ordinary day is absolutely nothing more than a day/night cycle. It's no more "night" in your fishtank when you turn the light off than it is in my bedroom on any given afternoon with the curtains drawn and the lights out! And, as I said in my first post, all this is of theological and exegetical importance. God makes the sun on the fourth day so that the Israelites will not regard the sun as the source of light..

That is a HUGE theological point. The great irony of your argument is that you are requiring we see the sun as the source of light. Genesis 1 is teaching that the sun is NOT the source of light. The sun MARKS the days. It doesn't DETERMINE the days. And that was a very, very, very important idea for the Israelites to understand, because in the ANE (and in much of the third world today) the sun is the giver of life. When it shines, you can work. You can provide a living. Plants can grow. You can live. When it doesn't shine, you can't do anything. You can't defend yourself. Why do you think the Egyptians worshiped it? But in separating the light from the sun, Moses is teaching that it is God, not the sun, that is the source of light and that it is God, therefore, not the sun, who is their provider.

As an aside, if we are going to do the secondary work of reconciling science with Scripture, I think that theo's understanding is probably more correct. I've even argued for it elsewhere (I don't have the time to find it now). I think that the sun probably was created in Gen 1:1 if we taken "the heavens and the earth" as a merism. But that work is very different from the work of exegesis. And the exegetical point is that ordinary days can and do exist without a sun.

edit:

BTW, I wanted to raise this, too, because it underscores my points above:

You mentioned earlier days were an Earth rotation, and I think we can both agree they would not have understood that.

I did not mention the rotation of the earth. In fact, I explicitly rejected the idea that we talk about it precisely BECAUSE "they would not have understood that." My exact words were, "I'm not talking anything whatsoever about the rotation of the earth."

See, I'm using the HGM. So I'm all up for entertaining weaknesses. But you need to show them from the text. Not from reading modern scientific assumptions--EVEN IF THEY ARE CORRECT--into the text.

[Jac3510]

Mr. YEC: I would possibly leave out the part about the earth rotating once on its axis, because I'm not sure Moses would've known the earth rotated on its axis. But other than that, an ordinary day would be 24 hours, or the time from one sunset to the next sunset. Or, one sunrise to the next sunrise.

And if it isn't clear, Rick, that's where I'd depart from you. You can't define an ordinary day, following Genesis 1, as a sunset to sunset. You have to define it as evening to morning cycle. If you want to press where the light comes from if not the sun, the YEC following the HGM will say, "From God, of course. He made the light on day one." God, not the sun, is the source of light. And your last comment is unfair. The light isn't any more supernatural than the sun is. God made the sun. The sun isn't supernatural. Neither is the light.

Again, what you are doing is reading your scientific understanding of the relation between light and the sun into the text. That understanding didn't exist back then, it isn't part of the biblical worldview, and the text explicitly says it is not the case. YOU are the one inventing this "supernatural light" category. The text NOWHERE says that light source was different on the first three than the last four days. It's all exactly the same. The sun doesn't produce the light in either the first day or the sixth. The light was created and gathered together on the first day. The sun was created later and governs the day. It marks the day. It doesn't produce the day. Never did, not on the first day, not on the fourth, and not on the sixth.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:

And if it isn't clear, Rick, that's where I'd depart from you. You can't define an ordinary day, following Genesis 1, as a sunset to sunset. You have to define it as evening to morning cycle.

So, an ordinary day is not a 24 hour day then? How are you defining evening and morning? Sundown to sunrise? Because the text seems to say evening and morning refer to sundown and sunrise.

If you want to press where the light comes from if not the sun, the YEC following the HGM will say, "From God, of course. He made the light on day one." God, not the sun, is the source of light. And your last comment is unfair. The light isn't any more supernatural than the sun is. God made the sun. The sun isn't supernatural. Neither is the light.

Ok. If God is the source of light, then in order for there to be evening and morning cycles(sundown and sunrise), then God, this source of light, would have to be stationary somewhere, as the earth rotates, right?

Again, what you are doing is reading your scientific understanding of the relation between light and the sun into the text. That understanding didn't exist back then, it isn't part of the biblical worldview, and the text explicitly says it is not the case. YOU are the one inventing this "supernatural light" category. The text NOWHERE says that light source was different on the first three than the last four days. It's all exactly the same. The sun doesn't produce the light in either the first day or the sixth. The light was created and gathered together on the first day. The sun was created later and governs the day. It marks the day. It doesn't produce the day. Never did, not on the first day, not on the fourth, and not on the sixth.

You're actually saying that the sun doesn't produce light?

[Jac3510]

Rick, you are overthinking what I'm saying. Just look at my words. I'm not talking about rotation. I'm not talking about sunset or sunrise. God is not a physical source of light that light shines out of.

Look at what I said.

God creates this stuff called light. He is the source. Don't think of light as a wave. Think about it as just brightness. You know, the stuff that lets you see. He puts it all in the same place. Where does it come from? The question is no more meaningful in this sense than "where does water come from" or "where does air come from"? Yeah you can talk about the production of atmospheres or about evaporation. But the fact is that water and air are just there. And so is light.

When the light is there we call that day. The time between light not being there and then being there--when it appears--we call that morning. When light goes away and we are left with darkness, we call that night. The time during which light is going away is called evening.

There is no sun in any of this equation. The stuff of light is either there or it is not. That simple.

So an ordinary day is the time between an evening and an evening: the cycle during which light was not there, is there, and has left again. That's a day. The sun is the heavenly body that rules or governs or marks the day. It doesn't produce the day. That's it. It doesn't matter how long that cycle is. Moses isn't interested in how long that cycle is. He would have divided a day up into twenty four "hours" (but where an hour for him was defined by the decan system, which is different from the later equinoctial sytem, and all that is slightly different from our own. But in any case, none of that matters. You are assuming that the hour comes first and a certain number of them added up makes a day. But that's backwards. The day comes first, and then you DIVIDE UP that day however you choose. So how long is a day? It's one day!

Again, the sun, the rotation of the earth, none of that has anything to do with, speaking from the perspective of Genesis 1.