Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
Locked
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by Jac3510 »

RickD wrote:KThere's nothing ordinary about a day without the sun. The sun is the source of light on the earth. The sun is what causes evenings and mornings. Sunrises and sunsets.
Scientifically, sure. Moses wasn't writing scientifically. He was writing phenomenally. Even OECs recognize that principle. An ordinary day is just a morning/evening cycle. You live near the beach. Haven't you gone out to watch the sunrise and were disappointed when you couldn't see it because of the overcast? From your perspective, the light just came. No sun! But hey, it was still an ordinary day.
YECs make a point of interpreting the bible by a simple reading. Then they go out of the way to make complicated, the whole issue of light on at least the first 3 days, as something other than sunlight.
No, you are making it more complicated by insisting on asking scientific questions to the text. But the text is very clear and very easy.

On the first day, God made light. The light came and went in a cycle. That's a day. It always has been, it always will be.
Other stuff happens.
On the fourth day, God made the sun. The sun comes up in the morning. It goes down at night.

Ordinary days, Rick. There's absolutely nothing complicated about that.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by RickD »

RickD wrote:
KThere's nothing ordinary about a day without the sun. The sun is the source of light on the earth. The sun is what causes evenings and mornings. Sunrises and sunsets.

Jac wrote:
Scientifically, sure. Moses wasn't writing scientifically. He was writing phenomenally. Even OECs recognize that principle. An ordinary day is just a morning/evening cycle. You live near the beach. Haven't you gone out to watch the sunrise and were disappointed when you couldn't see it because of the overcast? From your perspective, the light just came. No sun! But hey, it was still an ordinary day.
At this point we're just restating what we've said before.

I'm not talking about scientifically knowing the earth rotates on its axis. I'm talking about what we see, and what Moses would have seen as a normal part of his life. The morning comes, because the sun is rising. The evening comes, because the sun is setting. Or if you prefer terms less technical than sunrise and sunset...the evening comes and the light goes away, because the sun goes away behind the horizon. And morning comes, when the light comes, because the sun is coming out from behind the horizon.

And to address your beach analogy, the sun is still there, over the horizon, if the clouds obstruct its view. So instead of full sunlight, we have partial sunlight. But the sun is still the source of the light. As we can unscientifically see, when the sun goes behind the clouds, then comes out again. The fact is, that whether there's partial light, or full light on a day with no clouds, the sun is the source of that light. We don't need special science to understand that. So, even though in the morning, the light comes before the sun(from the point of view of us and Moses), the sun is still the source of that light. THAT IS UNAVOIDABLE. Even a 5 year old with no science background can connect the light with the source of that light.
RickD wrote:
YECs make a point of interpreting the bible by a simple reading. Then they go out of the way to make complicated, the whole issue of light on at least the first 3 days, as something other than sunlight.



Jac wrote:
On the first day, God made light. The light came and went in a cycle. That's a day. It always has been, it always will be.
Other stuff happens.
On the fourth day, God made the sun. The sun comes up in the morning. It goes down at night.

Ordinary days, Rick. There's absolutely nothing complicated about that.
Here Jac. I fixed it for you:

On the first day, God made light in the form of the sun, moon, stars, etc. The light came and went in a cycle, when the sun rose and set. That's an ordinary day. It always has been, it always will be.
Other stuff happens.
On the fourth day, God made it so the sun is visible on the earth's surface. The sun continues to come up in the morning. It continues to go down at night, just like it has since the earth existed.



Ordinary days, Jac. There's absolutely nothing complicated about that.
Two different ideas. As you have admitted yourself, both are consistent with HGM. Only one is consistent with what we or Moses would see everyday, and be considered an ordinary day. Moses would not have seen another light source besides the sun, which caused the morning/evening cycle. So to say he would even know about another light source, is out of the realm of what was ordinary to him. And to assume he knew of another light source which caused the morning/evening cycle, is possible, but it would have to have been given to Moses by revelation, not by what he ordinarily sees, every day of his life.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by Jac3510 »

RICK! I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LISTENING AND FOR SOME STUPID REASON I THINK THAT YELLING AT YOU WILL GET YOUR ATTENTION.

I AM NOT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THEO'S POSITION (which is the same, with reference to the sun, as DA's). Your "restatement"--your "fixing it for me" is totally irrelevant.

My God, Rick. Why can't you, of all people, actually engage with a position that's presented rather than inventing things?

Sheesh. Get out of your little box. You don't have to agree. You DO have to represent other positions correctly. I don't know why you are insisting on ignoring what I'm saying and not hearing me, but it's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's highly offensive. And now I really am done with you IN THIS THREAD.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by RickD »

Jac3510 wrote:RICK! I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LISTENING AND FOR SOME STUPID REASON I THINK THAT YELLING AT YOU WILL GET YOUR ATTENTION.

I AM NOT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THEO'S POSITION (which is the same, with reference to the sun, as DA's). Your "restatement"--your "fixing it for me" is totally irrelevant.

My God, Rick. Why can't you, of all people, actually engage with a position that's presented rather than inventing things?

Sheesh. Get out of your little box. You don't have to agree. You DO have to represent other positions correctly. I don't know why you are insisting on ignoring what I'm saying and not hearing me, but it's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's highly offensive. And now I really am done with you IN THIS THREAD.
Ok Jac. I'm writing to you in tiny letters, because I'm whispering. Your yelling gave me a headache. I hope you can still hear me.

All kidding aside, maybe someone else will explain it to me in a different way, so I can understand what you're saying. I just see a simple disagreement of our interpretations as to when the sun was created. And how that interpretation influences what Moses would consider as an ordinary day.

Other than that, I admit. I have no idea what you're saying. It's gone completely over my head. Maybe K or someone else can try to knock it into my thick skull.

Otherwise, I'll catch you later. Maybe on an OSAS thread, where I can like all of your posts. Maybe if I like some more of your posts, you'll stop yelling at me. You know how sensitive I can be Jac. :crying: :D
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5329
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by 1over137 »

Jac3510 wrote:
RickD wrote:KThere's nothing ordinary about a day without the sun. The sun is the source of light on the earth. The sun is what causes evenings and mornings. Sunrises and sunsets.
Scientifically, sure. Moses wasn't writing scientifically. He was writing phenomenally. Even OECs recognize that principle. An ordinary day is just a morning/evening cycle. You live near the beach. Haven't you gone out to watch the sunrise and were disappointed when you couldn't see it because of the overcast? From your perspective, the light just came. No sun! But hey, it was still an ordinary day.
YECs make a point of interpreting the bible by a simple reading. Then they go out of the way to make complicated, the whole issue of light on at least the first 3 days, as something other than sunlight.
No, you are making it more complicated by insisting on asking scientific questions to the text. But the text is very clear and very easy.

On the first day, God made light. The light came and went in a cycle. That's a day. It always has been, it always will be.
Other stuff happens.
On the fourth day, God made the sun. The sun comes up in the morning. It goes down at night.

Ordinary days, Rick. There's absolutely nothing complicated about that.
May I have few questions, Jac?
When God made sun, its light was added to the light made on first day? Or the first light ceased to exist?
How the light made in the first day went in a cycle?
Does the Bible adress this at all? And if not then it is left in mystery and what is left in mystery will remain a mystery?

Is there some other view on creation that you find plausible but your current interpretation seems best in your opinion?
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by Jac3510 »

1over137 wrote:May I have few questions, Jac?
When God made sun, its light was added to the light made on first day? Or the first light ceased to exist?
How the light made in the first day went in a cycle?
Does the Bible adress this at all? And if not then it is left in mystery and what is left in mystery will remain a mystery?

Is there some other view on creation that you find plausible but your current interpretation seems best in your opinion?
HOW DARE YOU ASK ME A QUESTION CAN'T YOU SEE I'M TOO BUSY BEING A MEANIE!!1!1!!11

:)

Sorry, just making fun of myself. Let me just answer your questions briefly. I had a longer answer typed up, and I think I found myself going way off subject. So here:
  • When God made sun, its light was added to the light made on first day? Or the first light ceased to exist?
The light of the sun was added to the light made on the first day. The light made on the first day never ceased to exist.
  • How the light made in the first day went in a cycle?
By analogy, like the ocean tide. The waters were gathered in one place to make the ocean, and the ocean rises and falls in a tide. Just so, the light was gathered together in one place and cycles to and fro over the earth in an evening/morning cycle. Please note that the thing about the light being "gathered together in one place" is intended to be an analogy to the waters. The text doesn't say that. What the text does say is that God separated the light from the darkness, and that paints a picture of gathering the light together in one place, as if it were some thing like water or land or air.
Does the Bible adress this at all? And if not then it is left in mystery and what is left in mystery will remain a mystery?
The Bible does not address any of the mechanisms by which the cycle takes place. Here I'd refer you back to the debate between Dawkins and Lennox posted on the God and Science forum. Lennox points out that explaining the mechanism doesn't touch the question of agency. Suppose darwinian evolution were true (in the sense of natural selection and all the rest). Just because we know the mechanism by which life developed it does not follow that there is not an agent employing or even designing the mechanism itself. Just so, when you ask "how" the light cycled and "how" evening/morning happened, you are asking a question of mechanism. The Bible leaves that totally unaddressed. The difficulty, of course, is that we know today that the mechanism of the evening/morning cycle is the rotation of the earth on its axis and the side of the earth facing the sun, such that it becomes meaningless to talk about morning/evening without the sun. But my point is that all of that is, again, a question of mechanism. Those questions did not exist for Moses. I'm afraid that Rick and others are confusing phenomenal language for scientific language, so there are asking questions that are inappropriate. In more logical terms, they are making a category mistake (and, by the way, young earth creationists like AiG who try to answer this challenge by positing a placeholder lightsource until the sun was created are making the same mistake).

So for me it's not really about mystery, because mystery implies some unknown mechanism. But the Bible story is totally uninterested in mechanism. It's interested in the perspective of the creation process from earth. It is presented in phenomenal language--language that describes appearance rather than objective, scientific reality. And from that perspective, the first thing that happened was the creation of light. Then the creation of the raqia. Then the creation of the earth and vegetation. Then the creation of the sun and other heavnly bodies, and so on. There's no reason to ask any more of the text than that in terms of what happened. From there, we need to ask questions about what the text is teaching and finally get around to asking how this fits with modern science.
Is there some other view on creation that you find plausible but your current interpretation seems best in your opinion?
I think theo's view is plausible, which is identical the the DA view with regard to the sun (ignoring the incorrect claim that "God had made the sun" is a plausible translation). I think K's overall sabbatical interpretation is plausible. I think my current intepretation is the best simply because it takes the text to mean what it says and is derived by following the HGM and has important theological ramifications that would have been important for Moses' audience to know.

----------------

And just to clarify, I'm not mad at you Rick. Extremely frustrated at my inability to get you to even grasp my argument much less get you to critique it properly. But I'm not angry at you, personally, in the least. :)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by RickD »

Jac wrote:
And just to clarify, I'm not mad at you Rick. Extremely frustrated at my inability to get you to even grasp my argument much less get you to critique it properly. But I'm not angry at you, personally, in the least. :)
How can I respond to that? You misrepresented what I meant!!! I didn't say you were mad at me. I was just crying because you yelled at me! I'm a very sensitive man. Kurieuo is teaching me not to be afraid of letting my feminine side out. You notice that Kurieuo is very good at being feminine.


But seriously...I'm flabbergasted that what you're saying went completely over my head. I may be dumb, but I'm usually not THIS stupid!


No hard feelings on my end Jac*.


*I've already finished bawling my eyes out. I'm very sensitive when people yell at me. :mrgreen:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Why the assumption the light on the first day was the sun? It could be the sun but it could also be the light of the world Jesus Christ. We need to notice there was no light in Genesis 1:2 and based on it being pitch black,we could say the earth is frozen solid.In the former future new creation there will be no sun and the light will come from God.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by RickD »

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the assumption the light on the first day was the sun? It could be the sun but it could also be the light of the world Jesus Christ. We need to notice there was no light in Genesis 1:2 and based on it being pitch black,we could say the earth is frozen solid.In the former future new creation there will be no sun and the light will come from God.
ACB,

"Over the surface of the waters", from verse 2, kinda assumes there's water. Which kinda means it's not frozen.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

RickD wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the assumption the light on the first day was the sun? It could be the sun but it could also be the light of the world Jesus Christ. We need to notice there was no light in Genesis 1:2 and based on it being pitch black,we could say the earth is frozen solid.In the former future new creation there will be no sun and the light will come from God.
ACB,

"Over the surface of the waters", from verse 2, kinda assumes there's water. Which kinda means it's not frozen.

Yes but what would happen if there was no sunlight?It is easy for me seeing that in Genesis 1:1 the heavens and earth were created in the beginning and it includes the sun,the sun is apart of the heavens yet it is not shining in verse 2. I've been discussing the Hebrew here lately and why I believe there was a restoration nut zi can get into the new testament Greek took and talk about the Greek word Katabole and how it is used every time you see the term foundation of the earth,but also Hebrews 11:11 where Katobole is used for conception and I checked it out for the NASB too .

But then I can show how Genesis 2:4 speaks of restoration and the new testament teaches it too when you see Katobole in foundation of the earth which means the breaking down of something in order to conceive,like catabolic in English.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by neo-x »

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the assumption the light on the first day was the sun? It could be the sun but it could also be the light of the world Jesus Christ.
I am not sure you realize how stupid this sounds. If Christ was the light there was no light better than him. It just means God is a poor planner, that he couldn't make the sun on day 1 or wasn't happy with the light Jesus was throwing off on earth on day 4.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by Kurieuo »

My reponse here is in relation to your first reply to me in this thread, and I will work my way to your second reply. I want to make sure I cover all your point adequately, so think it's best and easiest to just go in order. This response may still cover to a degree your later reply also.
Jac3510 wrote:"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
You're right in your last paragraph there, that I'd say the Sun still exists. As I've mentioned since, there could be a solar eclipse, maybe for some reason the sky is completely blackened (maybe a large volcanic eruption, thick overcast/stormy day or something the like). Nonetheless, we still have an ordinary day and understand what we expect such to be if the skies were clear.

Exodus 10:21-23 does illustrate that the "substance" of an ordinary day remains unaffected if one of its "properties" is removed. For example, take a dog. It has four legs, a tail, head, two ears, snout and is covered in fur. Chop off a hind leg. Do we still have a dog? I'm sure you'll agree with me that we do. Is the hind leg the dog, or the bigger portion? Well, I'm sure we'd agree again, the bigger living portion is the dog.

So what you've proven is that removing a part doesn't affect the whole, and likewise if we assume something of the whole then we can't say that is true of each of its parts. Otherwise we have a composition or division fallacy.

You're reading me wrong if you think I'm arguing that an "ordinary day" just needs a light source. I am saying in times of ancient Israel, going back to Moses, even back to Abraham and unto Adam and Even, the Sun, sun rising, going through the sky in a cycle before setting -- the whole enchilada -- would be seen as a day irrespective of whether or not the Sun or its light is seen (or some other property removed).

This also why I see AiG are in error if they think that they can just add a light source to mimic this whole process. It's not just one part of the process (light), but the whole process that surrounds what we all take to be an "ordinary day". I mean, you reject AiG's position because you see them basing it upon science of an Earth rotating. But, the fallacy I see with AiG's interpretation is that they're just taking one property of an "ordinary day", creating a replacement for that property, and touting victory for their interpretation that it takes ordinary days seriously. AiG are clearly committing a division/composition fallacy.

And this is why I also reject "24 hours" as an ordinary day. Because, an Earth day is presently also given an approximate time of 24 hours. That too, is a property of an ordinary Earth day, like a hind leg is a property of a dog. But, on it's own, it doesn't make up the substance of ordinary day just like a dog's hind leg isn't a dog. You can remove one or perhaps several properties and still have an ordinary day, but you can't take a property (light or 24 hour period of time) and call such an ordinary day.

Moving on... what of your own position regarding light without a source?

Genesis does say God called the light "Day" and darkness "Night". It doesn't seem to reference a light source, so I kind of get what you're trying to say especially in your follow-up post to me. You're on good ground. But, still an ordinary day is not light (with or without a source). Be careful here with what Genesis says: the light is called Day, and the darkness is called Night. This doesn't mean Day is light, nor Night is dark -- consider that God is love, but love is not God!

And then the Genesis passage arrives at the "evening and morning" refrain - the first day. And so the reader is pushed back into what everyone more fully accepts an "ordinary day" to encompass which is some cycle of morning to evening to morning.

BUT before you push back on these points, also consider this...

During Day 1, God's creative act is separating the light from darkness. A natural reading of the text leads one to conclude that before evening, the light God divides from darkness is Day and the darkness Night. Hold that thought! Before the day ends, we have light separated from darkness -- Day and Night. The puzzling question to answer is how did God separate the light from darkness, creating Day and Night, before the first night arrived (evening and morning)?

Day and Night are divided, which means they're separated into distinct areas. If we divide an apple in two, then we have this half and that half. It seems there needs to be a location where darkness (night) exists on the Earth, and a location where light exists on the Earth at the same time. Not to read modern science into the text, but something akin to Earth where the Sun is beaming down and hitting one side of it while the other side is covered in darkness, well, it really seems to fit the bill!

Call Moses et al. scientifically ignorant, but God... isn't. Perhaps there is some principal-ism, or similar rule, that can rescue and advocate such a scenario without resorting to science? Let's drop the mechanism, like you did with the Sun being the source. So Moses may not have known our Earth was round and the darkness was on the opposite side to the light God created, but nonetheless he likely knew there was some division of the two here and there. I find such precision even with the scientific explanation removed deeply fascinating and intriguing. The light is separated from the darkness during God's first creation day, and then there was evening and morning -- the first day.


Finally, I'll draw to an end. You quoted Exodus 10:21-23 to show removing a property of a day (the Sun penetrating through to Earth's surface), still allows for a day. Let me quote and raise you Joshua's long day. Please pay specific attention to what made this day long.
  • Joshua 10:12-14
    12On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

    Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
    and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
    13So the sun stood still,
    and the moon stopped,
    till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
    as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

    The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
I was actually wanting to get to your two reasons for placing the Sun on Day 4, but that will have to now wait.
Last edited by Kurieuo on Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by Nicki »

I'm getting you now, Jac. There wasn't 'a source of light', there was just 'light'. I was a bit bewildered though when you talked about the sun still not being the source of light, that it just rises because it's morning and sets because it's evening, and about the sun's light being added to the original light. Do you think there's still natural light around that doesn't come from the sun and stars?

I'm unconvinced however that 'made' referring to the sun and other heavenly bodies on day 4 could be interpreted as 'had made'. Rick, do you think that plants could have grown for a long period of time on earth without any direct sunlight, if the sun was hidden by clouds until 'day 4'?
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by RickD »

Nicki wrote:I'm getting you now, Jac. There wasn't 'a source of light', there was just 'light'. I was a bit bewildered though when you talked about the sun still not being the source of light, that it just rises because it's morning and sets because it's evening, and about the sun's light being added to the original light. Do you think there's still natural light around that doesn't come from the sun and stars?

I'm unconvinced however that 'made' referring to the sun and other heavenly bodies on day 4 could be interpreted as 'had made'. Rick, do you think that plants could have grown for a long period of time on earth without any direct sunlight, if the sun was hidden by clouds until 'day 4'?
Hi Nicki,

This article from the home site, talks about "had made", and addresses your question about the earth's atmosphere being a translucent, cloudy atmosphere before the sun, moon, stars, etc. we're visible from the earth's surface on day 4.

The article itself, is a response to an article by Terry Mortenson, a young earth creationist.

Let me know if you have any questions. :D
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

neo-x wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the assumption the light on the first day was the sun? It could be the sun but it could also be the light of the world Jesus Christ.
I am not sure you realize how stupid this sounds. If Christ was the light there was no light better than him. It just means God is a poor planner, that he couldn't make the sun on day 1 or wasn't happy with the light Jesus was throwing off on earth on day 4.
It just comes down to how we choose to interpret it. Plus all I was doing is questioning. why some say it is the sun and I said it could,but it could've been the light of God.But there is also another way we could interpret it too that I don't think many have thought about but it could not have anything at all to do with real light and real darkness but they are being used symbolic of God's kingdom and Satan's kingdom.

It really comes down to assu,option no matter what we decide because this verse has puzzled people for a long time.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Locked