Evidence for God from Science

YEC has been hammered here, but I do want to repeat that there is a disadvantage to Day-Age.
That is, if YEC does not hold to an ordinary day, then Day-Age doesn't win by default (under a literal interpretation).

A surface level reading without any deep reflection I think would lead most to believe while reading the text for the first time, that the writer has ordinary days in mind. And by "ordinary day", I mean in the very sense of that term with a morning and evening.

Only upon deeper reflection might one ponder days and how a morning could exist on the first day (where was God located on Earth?), or how days could exist if it is believed the Sun is created on day 4. And so we enter into interpretations that try to replace "ordinary day" with a supernatural 24-hour day, or day-age.

SO, given issues with existing interpretations that replace a true "ordinary day" with something other (YEC and Day-Agers),
then there seems to me room left for an interpretation which does seriously take ALL the days in Genesis 1 to be intended as truly being "ordinary days".

Those who may have followed my hermeneutics thread and discussion with Jac might know what I have in mind.

I believe in an interpretation where Moses' intention for "day" in Genesis 1 is actually foundationally neutral to both sides.
Meaning, if it is your cup of tea to believe the days are 24 hours well that's up to you.
On the other hand, if you want to believe the days represent ages, well that too is up to you.

In Genesis 1 Moses probably intended an "ordinary day" in any simple surface-level reading. He doesn't really intend to have the reader probe further into what these look like (e.g., what's a day without the Sun, is sunlight there on day 1 or day 4, etc). Moses therefore doesn't really care about what to make of such matters.

The question then is: If Moses is happy for the reader to just believe a true ordinary solar day is intended for all days, then make what you will of how to fit in God creating light and the Sun, but it seems to me that Moses doesn't want us to think more deeply other than an ordinary dawn to dusk day of work, evening and morning - one day. That's the structure in Genesis 1, right? Even for the first three days, an evening and morning! Moses would surely expect some readers to believe he intends solar days, and yet he does not seek to clarify how such can fit in.

NOW, if Moses is not concerned about the reader deeply thinking on what a day is beyond an ordinary dawn-to-dusk day, then why should we be so concerned?
Secondly, there must be something more to Genesis 1 that Moses is more concerned about given he's not phased at all by apparent possible difficulties caused in his writings in just assuming real ordinary solar days .

It seems obvious to me now, having participated in this debate for almost 20 years, that Moses' primary concern about illustrating the one true God was head of all creation. ALL of us will surely agree here, that above everything else, that's the main message of importance!

The 6-1 formulation of days represent the Sabbath, the seventh day of which is holy. It was a commandment to keep the Sabbath, because it pointed to God's creative work. To break the sabbath days for Israel was considered blasphemy. (Ezekiel 20:12-17) It was to be set a part and considered holy! Why? Because keeping the sabbath days represented acknowledging God in all His power as the one rightful Lord of all creation.
This is the main reason I see why sabbaths were holy. Why Israel were commanded to respect them, if God was truly their God, and not the feeble so-called creator gods of surrounding nations (like Phil points out of Egypt). For Israel not to keep sabbath days was to therefore reject and profane God, God who they entered into a promise with to be His people and He their God.

It is ironic that Jesus, being the Creator (John 1), was therefore challenged by the Pharisees for him and his followers breaking a sabbath day.
How did Jesus respond? The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man [Jesus] is Lord of the Sabbath.
There is only one rightful Lord of the Sabbath. In saying this, Jesus is identifying Himself the Lord of all Creation!
As Creator, it is His right to do as His pleases, since the Sabbath was set in place to respect the one true Creator as Lord over all.

So then, I argue Moses' concern is more found in the 6-1 pattern of days and Sabbatical intent that points to and highlights Israel's God as Lord over all creation. Therefore Moses is quite happy to employ the use of ordinary days without further reflection upon any intended duration, or how they be reconciled as true solar days in God's creative acts.

Here's the thing about the day lengths? Does it truly matter? I think people are so concerned with evolution and with wanting Scripture to match up with science, for unbelievers to see the Bible as lining up with scientific consensus, that they become obsessed over this issue. But this will likely remain unprovable in the eyes of whatever camp one happens to reside in. How would it impact us if: 1) We found out we were wrong about how we personally viewed the age issue (and that's whether we are in the YEC or the OEC camp)? 2) What great theological teachings are impacted by the age issue? None! 3) What doctrinal beliefs are at stake? NONE! 4) How does the earth or universe age impact the issue of salvation? Not one bit! Really, it's a rather meaningless debate - certainly as long as the answer is unprovable!

Philip wrote:Here's the thing about the day lengths? Does it truly matter? I think people are so concerned with evolution and with wanting Scripture to match up with science, for unbelievers to see the Bible as lining up with scientific consensus, that they become obsessed over this issue. But this will likely remain unprovable in the eyes of whatever camp one happens to reside in. How would it impact us if: 1) We found out we were wrong about how we personally viewed the age issue (and that's whether we are in the YEC or the OEC camp)? 2) What great theological teachings are impacted by the age issue? None! 3) What doctrinal beliefs are at stake? NONE! 4) How does the earth or universe age impact the issue of salvation? Not one bit! Really, it's a rather meaningless debate - certainly as long as the answer is unprovable!

Philip,

Ask just about any OEC, and I bet they'd agree with you. But YECs would almost all disagree.

1. Anyone who is dogmatic about his creation position may not believe they are wrong no matter what.

2, 3, & 4. Most OECs agree that there's no essential doctrine that's affected by one's belief, whether OEC or YEC. But many YECs disagree. Some YECs believe the doctrine of salvation is at stake if we allow for death before Adam's sin.


So, while I agree with you that the issue of one's creation position has no bearing on the doctrine of salvation, YECs disagree. To them, the most essential doctrine is at stake.

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 wrote: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.

You're trying too hard, K.

"Ordinary days" don't require a sun. Ordinarily, of course, the position of the sun is exactly part of the equation, so to speak. But the correspondence of the the two (the movement of the sun, the progression of the day) under ordinary circumstances doesn't create a necessary causal connection.

There's some evidence for this throughout Scripture. In the first place, I think you're whole argument begs the question, because Genesis 1, read normally, certainly does disprove your connection. I'd expect that no one would even come up with such a notion if [brace yourself for old argument] there wasn't an attempt to read old earth science back into the text. Just good old fashioned eisogesis.

But let that pass (not really, but in the sense of I wouldn't press the point). I'd simply point you to Exodus 10:21-23. No sun. Pure darkness. For three days. And consider while you are pondering that the fact that John explicitly says that there will be no sun in the new creation. Does that mean there will be no "ordinary days"? Perhaps, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make at all, and before you object to using later texts, I'd suggest you to that probably understood Moses' intentions in writing Genesis 1 better than all of us do. I mean, ignore the whole inspired writer thing. I take it a variety of reasons should be clear as to why John would be less confused about this passage that we are given his historical setting. Add to that the fact that he's clearly spent some time reflecting on Genesis 1 (consider John 1), and I think that tells us something about what Jews in general and Moses in particular would have thought about the nature of an ordinary day and the supposed necessity of the sun.

In any case, you might object that at least the example of the plague that sun existed. And that's fine, but irrelevant. The important point is that the days and nights were there whether their markers could be observed or not. That is, the nature/length of a day is not dependent on the position/presence of the sun

In fact, this is of some minor theological importance in the creation account. Ignore the question of whether the sun came into existence on the fourth day or not. Besides that, ask the question, why frame the story that way? Because I hate to tell it to you, it wasn't Moses was of winking at his audience to tell them, "By the way, the word yom here means long age!" Don't be silly. Do some real exegesis. Why put the creation of the sun on the fourth day?

It's actually not that hard to figure out. There are two reasons. First is the paneling issue of the first three days being focused on creating space or realms and the next three days focusing on filling that space or realms. The second is that the Hebrews were used to the Egyptian myths, and as you know, the sun was considered a god--God, in fact. Everything in Egypt revolved around the sun--which is why, by the way, that it is the ninth plague in a series of plagues that get worse and worse showing God's true power over all Egypt and its "gods", superseded only by an assault on Pharaoh himself. But I digress. The point is that the Genesis account purposefully downgrades the nature and role of the sun, indeed all the heavenly bodies, in the life of Israel. And for final proof of that, look only at the text itself:

• 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Notice what the sun is to do. It is to be A SIGN. Look at that very carefully. The SIGN does not create the reality. It signifies the reality.

So not only is your connection unwarranted, it actually presumes the very thing Moses is trying to get the Israelites to reject. Days come and go, regardless of what the sun does or doesn't do, regardless of whether or not it even exists. And that is one of the reasons I give such an eye-roll to this particular argument and especially the force DA advocates seem to think it has. It only has meaning if you completely miss the boat Moses wants you to get on.

Beyond all that, as an aside, I do think good arguments can be made within a YEC framework that the sun was properly created on the first day, but that's all rather beside the point. I just want to say that, yes, YEC holds that the six days of creation were ordinary days, and to say that they aren't or can't be because the sun wasn't there and because of the associated natural phenomenon (sunrise/sunset understood as defining sunrise/sunset) is just . . . well . . . no offense, it's silly. Or as I said at first, trying to hard.

edit:

None of this is to say, by the way, that Moses had in mind a strict 24 hour period of time. That's not the point. What he had in mind was an ordinary day. I mean, they didn't even have an idea of twenty four distinct hours. That's not exactly how they kept time. I mean, this whole line of thought is far too modern. I mean, we know today that all day are not exactly 24 hours! So did Moses mean exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds?

Really. Let's stop all that. Moses meant a day. We all know what a day is. It doesn't matter how it was counted or divided up. His point is just this: God created the world in six of them. How long are the days? What do you mean. They are a day. Seriously. Go ask Moses, "Hey, Moses, how long is an ordinary day?" and he'll give you a sideways look at best. Try to follow that up with, "Aha, so you don't know exactly HOW LONG an ordinary day is. So maybe an ordinary day could be billions of year!" Let's ignore the difficulty that years are composed of days, so billions of years is really billions of days, and it's just silly to say that one ordinary day is REALLY billions of real days.

Nope. I'm going to insist on what I said in the other thread. If you are going to focus on the six-one pattern rather than the length of the yom, the only way to fit in old earth that I see is to regarded the days as fundamentally non-historical. You must regard them as literary devices similar to the way the Framework Hypothesis does. You don't get to admit six ordinary days and then try to find a way out of the days being ordinary after all.

*takes fingers off keyboard to let it cool*

Jac wrote:
But the sun existed! you might say. Fine. No one cares. The days and nights were there whether their markers could be observed or not. That is, the nature/length of a day is not dependent on the position/presence of the sun

Jac,

Unless I'm misreading you, it seems you are saying that even though the earth's rotation is at least partially affected by the sun, and therefore the nature and length of a day is dependent on the sun, it's not dependent on the sun.

An ordinary day, as YECs call ordinary, is 24 hours. The basis of that 24 hour day is dependent on something that didn't exist for the first 3 days(according to some YECs).

If the sun didn't exist for the first 3 days, what caused the day to have morning and evening, and to be ordinarily 24 hours?

As an aside, I'm just about convinced to start a "spurious arguments used by OEC/DA folks" type thread. I was very detailed about what I respect in the DA interpretation and K's sabbatical interpretation even more so. But bad arguments make good arguments look foolish. And at the top of that are these three--arguments that OECs really should stop using, because, frankly, they look silly when they do so (but only to us stupid YEC folks . . . OECs meanwhile pat themselves on the back at how clever they really are )

1. The first three days can't be ordinary days cause there's no sun until day four! (Really? You think Moses or the first readers would have missed a detail like that?)
2. Too much stuff happened on the sixth day for it all to be just one day! (Yeah, again, you think no one has ever thought about that. I would encourage anyone impressed by that argument to google it. It's one of the easier YEC problems to address.)
3. The church fathers didn't think the universe was created in six literal days--implication, they set the precedent for OEC! (No. That's so dishonest it's about as close to telling a lie as you can get without being formally charged with it, and it's so bad, even OECs have been asking other OECs to stop making the claim).

Really guys. YEC has its issues, the obvious ones being with science. But don't pile up bad arguments. Not helpful to your cause, folks.

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
But the sun existed! you might say. Fine. No one cares. The days and nights were there whether their markers could be observed or not. That is, the nature/length of a day is not dependent on the position/presence of the sun

Jac,

Unless I'm misreading you, it seems you are saying that even though the earth's rotation is at least partially affected by the sun, and therefore the nature and length of a day is dependent on the sun, it's not dependent on the sun.

An ordinary day, as YECs call ordinary, is 24 hours. The basis of that 24 hour day is dependent on something that didn't exist for the first 3 days(according to some YECs).

If the sun didn't exist for the first 3 days, what caused the day to have morning and evening, and to be ordinarily 24 hours?

You're misreading me.

I'm not talking anything whatsoever about the rotation of the earth. You are confusing the world of the text with the world of nature. I'd expect a YEC to do that. You, frankly, should know better. Moses wrote from the perspective of the earth, not outer space. There's nothing here about the rotation of the earth.

I'm telling you to forget about 24 hours. In saying that, I am NOT saying feel free to plug in billions of years. I am telling you to think about an ordinary day. Just a run of the mill ordinary day. Forget the clock. Just think about the day. In fact, don't forget the clock. Don't you think it would be stupid to argue that my stove clock defines what a day is? It doesn't. The clock serves a sign. It tells me not only what day it is, but where I am in it.

Just the same in Moses' thought. And frankly, just the same in anyone's thought. I'm saying K's basic premise is wrong. The day isn't dependent on the present of the sun. See other Scripture that presumes it that I pointed out. K, like a lot of critics of YEC, is confusing "ordinary day" with "solar day." Hey, sure, in 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of cases, that's exactly right. And why? Because God put the sun in place to mark a day. But there are exceptions to that rule. Where there is no sun, there are still days, biblically speaking. How long are those days?!? They are ordinary days. Hey, you might not have the sun to tell you what part of the day it is exactly (which hour), but it's still a day.

And to add to this, this is all, again, of great importance with regard to Genesis 1. Moses' point is that the light of the day does not necessarily come from the sun. I REALLY need you to see how important this is. It's central when I preach this in church. God made the light FIRST. Why? Because He didn't want the Israelites thinking that the sun gave them their source of power. HE DID. He wanted them to avoid the obvious error of worshiping the sun (and its modern counterpart in ultraenvironmentalism).

There is light. There is dark. The sun and moon govern times. They are signs for those times. They do not determine those times. To think they do is to undermine Moses' theological point in Genesis 1. Again, the bottom line is that ordinary days are ordinary days whether or not you have a sun, moon, a star, a cow, land, the ocean, people, trees, butterflies, or anything else. A day is just day. And what is a day? Look around you and figure it out. In our modern scientific age we've defined it. It's relative to the sun, blah, blah, blah. My daughter isn't a scientist. She knows what a day is. It's a light/dark cycle where you play and sleep. That's pretty much it. No sun necessary.

But what many are ignoring or aren't familiar with is the context of what Israel had absorbed during four centuries in Egypt and the very likely point of all of the specific phraseology was mostly designed to correct Israel's (at the time) wrong THEOLOGICAL understandings. Anyone reading the Egyptian accounts cannot deny this is a strong possibility. There is NO way these two very different theological accounts are so similarly worded as to how their respective creation accounts unfold. The issue should be, not what did Moses understand about a "day," but what was God's purposes in what and precisely how He inspired him what to write/how to word it. To deny that this not a possibility is to have an agenda to force the text to line up with their preconceived views.

No one is ignoring that, Philip. At least, no one here. Did you not read my replies to K in the previous thread? I talked about that very issue a lot. And if you aren't aware, this is one of the major differences in the Egyptian and Hebrew creations accounts. In the Egyptian account, everything happened in one day. In the Hebrew account, everything happened in seven days. And I submitted a very important reason why that is the case (especially in terms of the sun being created on day four) in my reply to K just above.

Jac wrote:
I'm not talking anything whatsoever about the rotation of the earth. You are confusing the world of the text with the world of nature. I'd expect a YEC to do that. You, frankly, should know better. Moses wrote from the perspective of the earth, not outer space. There's nothing here about the rotation of the earth.

I'm telling you to forget about 24 hours. In saying that, I am NOT saying feel free to plug in billions of years. I am telling you to think about an ordinary day. Just a run of the mill ordinary day. Forget the clock. Just think about the day. In fact, don't forget the clock. Don't you think it would be stupid to argue that my stove clock defines what a day is? It doesn't. The clock serves a sign. It tells me not only what day it is, but where I am in it.

Jac,
I'm not arguing against what Moses wrote. I'm arguing against the YEC interpretation. The "ordinary" day, with morning and evening, and 24 hours is that way because of the existence of the sun, and its effect on the rotation of the earth.

Just like a year is a year, because it takes a year for the earth to revolve around the sun. While the sun is also used to mark the time of day, or even time of year, somewhat like a clock, the difference is that the clock doesn't cause daytime light, and nighttime darkness.

Just the same in Moses' thought. And frankly, just the same in anyone's thought. I'm saying K's basic premise is wrong. The day isn't dependent on the present of the sun. See other Scripture that presumes it that I pointed out. K, like a lot of critics of YEC, is confusing "ordinary day" with "solar day." Hey, sure, in 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of cases, that's exactly right. And why? Because God put the sun in place to mark a day. But there are exceptions to that rule. Where there is no sun, there are still days, biblically speaking. How long are those days?!? They are ordinary days. Hey, you might not have the sun to tell you what part of the day it is exactly (which hour), but it's still a day.

Jac,
Forgive me for not following you on this. Of course a day is dependent on the existence of the sun. That's what we're arguing about. The EXISTENCE of the sun, not the presence/visibility of the sun. YECs that say the sun didn't exist until the 4th day, say it literally didn't exist. Not that it just wasn't visible.

And to add to this, this is all, again, of great importance with regard to Genesis 1. Moses' point is that the light of the day does not necessarily come from the sun. I REALLY need you to see how important this is. It's central when I preach this in church. God made the light FIRST. Why? Because He didn't want the Israelites thinking that the sun gave them their source of power. HE DID. He wanted them to avoid the obvious error of worshiping the sun (and its modern counterpart in ultraenvironmentalism).

That's fine. K addressed that. If the light wasn't from the sun, it was supernatural light. So the day should be called a "supernatural" day, not an ordinary day. Ordinary days as we know them, need the existence of the sun, not just as a marker of the time of day, like a clock, but literally for the day to be an ordinary day, the sun needs to exist.

There is light. There is dark. The sun and moon govern times. They are signs for those times. They do not determine those times. To think they do is to undermine Moses' theological point in Genesis 1. Again, the bottom line is that ordinary days are ordinary days whether or not you have a sun, moon, a star, a cow, land, the ocean, people, trees, butterflies, or anything else. A day is just day. And what is a day? Look around you and figure it out. In our modern scientific age we've defined it. It's relative to the sun, blah, blah, blah. My daughter isn't a scientist. She knows what a day is. It's a light/dark cycle where you play and sleep. That's pretty much it. No sun necessary.

Jac,

Do you actually believe that the moon doesn't determine how long a lunar month is? The month is the length it is, because of the moon.


A day is a light/dark cycle because the sun exists to give off light!

And the year is a year, because the sun exists.

I'm not going to press this any further, Rick.

I'm going to be very blunt, probably too blunt because I'm still recovering (or I'll use that as an excuse). This whole argument/point is ridiculous. It's completely incredible. It's nonsense. It's not worth debating. If you or anybody else wants to think you've made some profound observation, be my guest. It'll be another point at which I roll my eyes at how small minded OECs are.

Bottom line: you are wrong. I've told you why. The day does not depend on the existence of the sun. No sun does not mean a supernatural day. That's a silly claim. The purpose of the sun is not to determine/create the day, but to mark the day. That's the biblical statement. You can ignore what the Bible says if you like and insist on reading science back into the text as you OECs are wont to do. Or you can just let the Bible speak for itself and understand it within its own worldview. But I've no interest in it that debate. I was interested in K's long thread because he was there trying to take seriously what the text actually says. He, and you, are just not doing that here.

Supernatural day . . . really . . .

Jac wrote:

I'm going to be very blunt, probably too blunt because I'm still recovering (or I'll use that as an excuse). This whole argument/point is ridiculous. It's completely incredible. It's nonsense. It's not worth debating. If you or anybody else wants to think you've made some profound observation, be my guest. It'll be another point at which I roll my eyes at how small minded OECs are.

Yes Jac,

Too blunt. I like you better when you're not sick. I hope you feel better soon.

Bottom line: you are wrong. I've told you why. The day does not depend on the existence of the sun. No sun does not mean a supernatural day. That's a silly claim. The purpose of the sun is not to determine/create the day, but to mark the day. That's the biblical statement. You can ignore what the Bible says if you like and insist on reading science back into the text as you OECs are wont to do. Or you can just let the Bible speak for itself and understand it within its own worldview. But I've no interest in it that debate. I was interested in K's long thread because he was there trying to take seriously what the text actually says. He, and you, are just not doing that here.

Supernatural day . . . really . . .

And I told you that you were wrong. The length of an "ordinary" day, does depend on the existence of the sun. Ken Ham, for example, uses the term ordinary day. To him, it means a day that's 24 hours long. And yes Jac, the sun is at least partially responsible for the day being 24 hours. Sunset to sunset, one day to the next, throughout the year, averages out to 24 hours. Our brain clocks are more or less in tune with the rising and setting of the sun. Our awake part of the day is when we see the sun. Our resting time is when it's dark, and the sun has set.

And I'm not ignoring what scripture says about the sun, moon and stars being used to mark the days, months and years.
Genesis 1:14:
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

Those lights appeared so that they could be use to mark the days, months and years. But again, we aren't arguing about the presence or visibility of those lights. We're arguing about the existence of the lights. In particular, the sun, which according to YEC didn't exist until day 4.

So contrary to your reading into the bible, something that it actually doesn't say, not only are the heavenly bodies markers of days, months, and years, but the sun and moon also cause the day to be as long as it is, and the year to be as long as it is.

It's actually neither too blunt nor is it from being sick. I'm just giving you an excuse to write me off. Makes it easier on everybody.