Evidence for God from Science

I see the statement repeated that YECs accept "ordinary" days.
Do YEC interpretations really accept ordinary days as what they actually stand for?
I don't believe YECs do accept ordinary days.

An ordinary day is a full cycle of day and night, or if we're only looking at the daytime (dawn to dusk).
This requires sunrises and sunsets -- the heart of what a true ordinary day is.

To superimpose one property associated with a day, is not accepting an ordinary day.
AND, common to many if not all YEC positions (I haven't come across one which doesn't do something like this),
is to take a property of time that we today associate with a day, and then assign that to "day" (yom).
This time period being 24 hours.

Why do YECs assign 24 hours to "day"? Because it is believed the Sun isn't created until Day 4.
On days 1-3 for light, while such isn't in the text, it is believed either God is the source of light or some other source.
The moment this is done, then we're no longer talking about an ordinary day in the plainest sense.

Am I knit-picking in not letting them have 24-hour days as an "ordinary day"?
Not at all. This is highly important to the debate and the strict guidelines YECs place upon interpreting the text for other positions.
But, if they don't even meet the requirements of a stricter interpretative method, then they can't claim superiority.

If Moses intended day (yom) in Genesis to literally mean an ordinary day, then we must accept that.
That forms part of the stricter interpretation method being used, and which YECs challenge Day-Agers with.
Note then, that equally saying that "day" only means "24 hours" isn't accept an "ordinary day".

This is no better than what YECs accuse Day-Age proponents of doing --
Day-Agers substitute in an referent found in the Hebrew lexicon for yom (day) as being an unspecific period of time.
YECs instead prefer to substitute in only a specific period of time (12/24 hours) while at the same token disassociating a day from a solar day.

BOTH, therefore symbolise yom to be a period of time: one specific, one not.
Only YEC remove meaning of day being associated with an Earth rotation and the Sun (solar day).

So that to me, leaves us with the follow advantages and disadvantages to each position.

Day-Age Advantages:

• Takes Sun to be created in the beginning when God created the heavens and Earth. (v.1)
• Doesn't introduce a second unmentioned source of light, but follows creation events as would be seen from Earth's initial surface (where the Spirit of God is brooding over the waters v.2).

Day-Age Disadvantages:

• If Moses intended "ordinary day", it doesn't accept this. Instead, it superimposes an acceptable variant found in the Hebrew lexicon (dictionary) as an unspecified period of time.

YEC Advantages:

• Many believe more literal (seriously questionable as per above)

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.

So, are you saying that since according to YEC interpretation, the sun wasn't created until day 4, then there's no basis for the first 3 days to be solar days(24 hours)?

The substance of "day" is lost if they're not solar days and must be re-interpreted as 24 hours. That's not an ordinary day.

Kurieuo wrote:The substance of "day" is lost if they're not solar days and must be re-interpreted as 24 hours. That's not an ordinary day.

I'm not following you. In ancient Israel, a day is from sundown to sundown, correct? Isn't that both a solar day, and 24 hours(roughly)?

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The substance of "day" is lost if they're not solar days and must be re-interpreted as 24 hours. That's not an ordinary day.

I'm not following you. In ancient Israel, a day is from sundown to sundown, correct? Isn't that both a solar day, and 24 hours(roughly)?

You're actually touching upon what I'm getting at there.
Let me see if I can better describe.

If an ordinary day in Hebrew terms requires a Sun, then what does a day look like when there is no Sun?
A big hand going around on an analog clock 24 times? No. In Hebraic terms, you can't have an ordinary day if there is no Sun.

So YECs who believe the Sun is created on Day 4 must improvise and take a token of a day for days 1-3.
The token they take is what we observe the duration of a day to be which is 24 hours.

24 hours however is not what an actual day is, it is the duration an ordinary day has
(at least 24 hours is an Earth day's duration today, it was apparently less in the past, and will be longer in the future
-- in other words a period of time is not what makes "day" a day but something other e.g., sunrise to sunrise).

And let's be clear, if YECs are claiming they interpret day (yom) as an "ordinary day" then that is flat out wrong.
What they interpret as day is a token -- a representation -- nothing more or less.

Moses and his contemporaries understood a day to be from sundown to sundown or similar so I see it as his looking back with his current understanding, even though 24 hours would have seemed an arbitrary period of time before the sun was created. Not that I'm necessarily YEC

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The substance of "day" is lost if they're not solar days and must be re-interpreted as 24 hours. That's not an ordinary day.

I'm not following you. In ancient Israel, a day is from sundown to sundown, correct? Isn't that both a solar day, and 24 hours(roughly)?

You're actually touching upon what I'm getting at there.
Let me see if I can better describe.

If an ordinary day in Hebrew terms requires a Sun, then what does a day look like when there is no Sun?
A big hand going around on an analog clock 24 times? No. In Hebraic terms, you can't have an ordinary day if there is no Sun.

So YECs who believe the Sun is created on Day 4 must improvise and take a token of a day for days 1-3.
The token they take is what we observe the duration of a day to be which is 24 hours.

24 hours however is not what an actual day is, it is the duration an ordinary day has
(at least 24 hours is an Earth day's duration today, it was apparently less in the past, and will be longer in the future
-- in other words a period of time is not what makes "day" a day but something other e.g., sunrise to sunrise).

And let's be clear, if YECs are claiming they interpret day (yom) as an "ordinary day" then that is flat out wrong.
What they interpret as day is a token -- a representation -- nothing more or less.

Oh ok. Then you're saying what Hugh Ross, Rich Deem, and others have been saying. If YECs believe the sun was created on day 4, then there's no basis to say that the first 3 days were ordinary days. And if the first 3 days have no basis to be 24 hours in an ordinary sense, because if there was no sun, then how could it be ordinary. And further, why think each of the other 3 creation days are 24 hours long.

If I read Ham and others correctly, their argument is that the plain reading of the text leads us to conclude that the creation days can't be anything except ordinary 24 hour days. But, whose definition of ordinary? Our modern definition? So, since in their belief that there was no sun before day 4, then they're reading the text through their modern definition of "ordinary day", instead of understanding what a day was at the time of creation.

And by reading through modern "glasses" they're doing the same thing they accuse OECs of doing, eisegesis.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The substance of "day" is lost if they're not solar days and must be re-interpreted as 24 hours. That's not an ordinary day.

I'm not following you. In ancient Israel, a day is from sundown to sundown, correct? Isn't that both a solar day, and 24 hours(roughly)?

You're actually touching upon what I'm getting at there.
Let me see if I can better describe.

If an ordinary day in Hebrew terms requires a Sun, then what does a day look like when there is no Sun?
A big hand going around on an analog clock 24 times? No. In Hebraic terms, you can't have an ordinary day if there is no Sun.

So YECs who believe the Sun is created on Day 4 must improvise and take a token of a day for days 1-3.
The token they take is what we observe the duration of a day to be which is 24 hours.

24 hours however is not what an actual day is, it is the duration an ordinary day has
(at least 24 hours is an Earth day's duration today, it was apparently less in the past, and will be longer in the future
-- in other words a period of time is not what makes "day" a day but something other e.g., sunrise to sunrise).

And let's be clear, if YECs are claiming they interpret day (yom) as an "ordinary day" then that is flat out wrong.
What they interpret as day is a token -- a representation -- nothing more or less.

Oh ok. Then you're saying what Hugh Ross, Rich Deem, and others have been saying. If YECs believe the sun was created on day 4, then there's no basis to say that the first 3 days were ordinary days. And if the first 3 days have no basis to be 24 hours in an ordinary sense, because if there was no sun, then how could it be ordinary. And further, why think each of the other 3 creation days are 24 hours long.

If I read Ham and others correctly, their argument is that the plain reading of the text leads us to conclude that the creation days can't be anything except ordinary 24 hour days. But, whose definition of ordinary? Our modern definition? So, since in their belief that there was no sun before day 4, then they're reading the text through their modern definition of "ordinary day", instead of understanding what a day was at the time of creation.

And by reading through modern "glasses" they're doing the same thing they accuse OECs of doing, eisegesis.

Yes, that's pretty much it.

Language can be sneaky too.
It can be hard to pick up on equivocations.

"24 hours" will be squeezed in and people won't blink.
However, a strictly literal exegesis demands that Moses intended an "ordinary day".
Because they know very well there can be no ordinary days on days 1-3 without the Sun, 24 hours is often smuggled in.

Sadly, English lends itself well to such smuggling in.
For example, you can say "an ordinary day is 24 hours" and that reads perfectly fine.
But, by that we mean an ordinary day has the duration of 24 hours, not that an ordinary day is 24 hours in essence. An ordinary day is in essence (to the Hebrews) sunset to sunset.

In programming it is so much simpler to define logically,
Ordinary Day == 24 hours
Ordinary Day !== 24 hours

Ahh, anyway, that's probably confusing to most.
Now you seem to understand, I don't want to confuse you.

Re: Rich, Ross, etc I'm not sure they specifically challenge YECs claim of "ordinary day"??
I'm sure they target the absurdity of days 1-3 without a Sun, but otherwise they seem to let YECs get away with claiming a literal 24 hour view (which isn't really literal if an "ordinary day" (sunset to sunset) is really intended by Moses).

Nicki wrote:Moses and his contemporaries understood a day to be from sundown to sundown or similar so I see it as his looking back with his current understanding, even though 24 hours would have seemed an arbitrary period of time before the sun was created. Not that I'm necessarily YEC

That's just it Nicki.

The claim by YECs is that they are interpret yom (day) in Genesis 1 literally as an ordinary day.
That yom can only ever mean an ordinary day. And therefore a YEC interpretation is more faithful to Scripture.

BUT, it can't be claimed that YECs accept a literal ordinary day without the Sun.
Replacing the true substance of ordinary day (which requires the Sun) with some other symbol (24 hours)...
well... you're now replacing what an ordinary day is with a representation.

And a representation of an ordinary day is not the same as an ordinary day.
That's why it is false for YECs to claim that they interpret yom literally as an ordinary day.

Obviously, we can see how 24 hours is symbolic of an ordinary day.
And, you know, maybe there's good reason to substitute in a period of time (24 hours) for an ordinary day.
But again, a substitution is happening. And that's the whole point I'm getting out.

This undoes their whole argument in favour of YEC being more faithful to Scripture.
For, if YECs do not interpret yom literally as an ordinary day, and that is what Moses intended,
then they have an interpretation that is unfaithful to Scripture (like they accuse of Day-Agers).

This 24-hour day stuff is simply bizarre. God is ETERNAL, for Whom time is but a tool. He patiently waits out many thousands of years for mankind's story to unfold, and yet He's supposedly in some ENORMOUS hurry to cram as much into the sixth day of creation a possible. Sure, for God, NOTHING is impossible. But when one thinks a bit about what all went on in that sixth day, you see how unnatural it would have had to be - not to mention, one would wonder what the tremendous hurry is to cram so much into one day.

I mean, my wife is the greatest multi-tasker I've ever seen - even for a woman, she's off the scale of what she can do in a short period. But consider the sixth day.

(From reasons.org):

Put simply, too many events occurred on creation day 6 to be squeezed into 24 hours. Following the overview of creation described in Genesis 1:1–2:4, we read a detailed recap of the sixth day from man’s point of view in Genesis 2:5–25. Together, the two descriptions tell us that on day 6 alone God:

- created a host of creatures to live and flourish on the land (Genesis 1:24–25);
- created human beings (Genesis 1:26–29)—albeit in two stages, the first one being the formation of the man (Adam) out of the dust of the ground
(Genesis 2:7);
- planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2:8);
- caused trees and plants to grow in the Garden of Eden in accordance with the same ordinary providence He exercised over creation from the beginning (Genesis 2:9; cf. Genesis 1:11–12, 2:5);
- placed Adam in the Garden (Genesis 2:15) and appointed him as its keeper;
- made a covenant with Adam (Genesis 2:16–17; cf. Hosea 6:7);
- recognized that Adam was alone and noted that this was not a good state of affairs (Genesis 2:18);
- introduced Adam to the animals, and allowed him to name them (Genesis 2:19–20);
- put the man to sleep, made a woman (Eve) from a part of Adam’s side, and then brought her to Adam (Genesis 2:21–22).

(And I doubt Adam and Eve made love on their wedding night, as Adam was just too dang TIRED!!! Plus, he felt he needed to find out all about the "birds and the bees" first. )

More about this from RTB: http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-six ... reationism

But Philip,

That argument is moot. That was before sin tainted everything. Adam was superman before he sinned. Didn't you see superman, where he flew really fast around the world, made it rotate in reverse, thereby going back in time? Adam probably did that to make the 6th day last longer. That way we can still hold to an ordinary(sorry K) 24 hour day. Not only is this plausible, but I challenge you to prove it wrong. You can't, so it's gotta be right.

I spent about 18 hours a day, for the last 10 years just to come up with that theory.


Edit:
Just to add, if Christians went with my theory, we could defeat evolution. Because evolution can't defeat superman. Unless evolution evolved from kryptonite.

I'm slow this morning.
I thought you were being serious Rick,
and then I realised you were doing a little advocacy of the opposing position.

I often run my thoughts my wife who is (or acts) interested, but doesn't understand the details.

Yesterday when I told her about my particular line of thought here
-- the superiority of a YEC interpretation with a literal hermeneutic that YECs often assume with Scripture re: "ordinary day" --
one main point that we discussed was not just whether 24 hours truly represents an ordinary day,
but rather questioning how you could refer to it as a "solar day" if there was no Sun.
She says, that it doesn't seem like a very deep thought to her -- an ordinary day has a start and a finish, morning cycling through to night. There's no real time period defined for it, but it's more about the cycle.

So to setup an alternative light source for until the Sun is created for day 4 (although why should we now switch to the Sun for days at day four?),
YECs aren't necessarily replacing yom in the first three days with "24 hours", but rather a day that masquerades as an ordinary solar day.

In other words, a day for YECs is not just representing 24 hours during days 1-3, but rather mimics an ordinary day through the need to have an alternate light source other than the Sun. Now if an ordinary day is being mimicked, then it is absurd to call such an ordinary day. It's more like a "supernatural day" has replaced the ordinary meaning of day in days 1-3 until the Sun creation.


SO then, if using a literal method when reading Genesis 1, when you start seeing how much is being replaced/added to to a YEC interpretation,
it becomes a matter of, well... which "literal" interpretation is the lesser evil (one with least disadvantages).
Purely on a Scriptural basis, it seems clear to me YEC has the greater disadvantages.

If the worst that a Day-Age interpretation has is that it takes yom to mean a period of time, a legitimate possible referent in the Hebrew lexicon (dictionary), then given its benefits of how everything else just snugly fits once you drop down to Earth's surface where the Spirit is brooding over Earth's waters (v.2), and then atmospheric conditions being what changes to allow Sun light to penetrate Earth's thicker atmosphere down to eventually being able to see stars in the sky on day 4 -- well, there's just so much explanation that fits like hand-in-glove.

At the end of the day, I think Moses did know, may have been presented with a dream. That is God's normal way of communication with prophets, via visions and dreams. And creation is something very visual, so such I think would be the best communication method. And, these details that were told to Moses, I believe can be seen really revealed in the words of Scripture. We see that. Having seen it, I can't unsee it every time I read Genesis -- the understanding of Sun in the heavens and Earth, zooming down the Earth's surface and playing out of atmospheric conditions just brings so much sense to the text. I just can't unsee it.

If on the other hand, if we go with the YEC interpretation, I feel to any listener creation becomes rather mystical. And this is a second argument I'm making here. When I'd Genesis 1 prior to not having any position, and not even knowing there was a controversy, I kept wondering what is going on. Light created day 1, but then day 4 (scratches head). Separating the waters above the expanse from waters below. (scratches head) It keeps the creative act mysterious and strange, making one wonder what is really going on.

The fact YEC interpretations have evolved over time (e.g., a vapor canopy model that AiG now considers rubbish), just supports my point that it's all very mysterious. Unlike the Day-Age interpretation which does draw upon science in understanding Earth's early history and atmospheric conditions to better understand Genesis 1 (and rightfully so, because the expanse bit is the part I found most confusing when I read the Bible before taking any position).

Now maybe it was Moses' intention to keep creation mysterious, but now there is an issue of historicity. Theistic Evolutionists, who may just say its all allegory that points to God as Creator of everything, removes any historical element to Genesis 1. Well, if everything is put is such mysterious terms that in some parts we just don't know what is being said of what historically happened, while others parts we do, well this is no better to me then someone that calls this part and that part allegory and says, "oh, but this scrap verse here is clearly allowing evolution to be possible."

Anyway, I really need to work today... I'm sure Jac will soon have his all-powerful keyboard in front of him soon.

Kurieuo: "At the end of the DAY, I think Moses did know..."

OK, let's agree that Moses only understood a day to mean 24 hours. He did NOT have scientific understandings. And we all know that God does not always explain all of the details of every back story. Not to mention multiple "days" are described without a sun. Right away, that should make us realize that we can't assume these were 24-hour days. Remember, Moses is writing from an understanding and perspective of a person far removed from the events he is chronicling - even the ones since Adam's time. And so, what DID the Israelites know BEFORE Moses? Well, they had absorbed 400+ years of ancient Egyptian creation mythology. Ever read any of those? They eerily and VERY closely parallel, albeit with key important theological differences, those ancient myths. And the ancient Egyptians accounts so closely resemble the Genesis accounts that there is absolutely NO way this is an accident. It is entirely possible that what the Genesis accounts were designed to do - in part - is to correct their false understandings Israel had after 400 years of absorbing pagan beliefs. And that the Genesis Creation accounts were written to correct their false understandings per the Egyptian's theology. This is not to say that the Genesis accounts are not historical - they ARE. But Israel at the time of Moses was of a pre-scientific society that had four centuries of false understandings given to her by pagans.

I highly encourage you to buy this book ("In the Beginning We Misunderstood"): http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-We-Misu ... 0825439272 The authors are two evangelical theologians and Bible instructors. Once you read the Egyptian accounts and then compare them with Genesis, you should have no doubt that Genesis is written, at least in part, to correct the false things that Israel had absorbed in Egypt. In the Egyptian accounts, there are greater gods and lesser gods. Every key aspect of creation has a god that is part of it, has specific dominions. Contrasted, Yahweh is the ONLY God, and He both created and stands outside of and in absolute control over all that He has created. I'd encourage anyone wondering about the OEC vs. YEC business to investigate this wonderful book. It's not enough to just say that Mose and Israel understood a "day" to mean a specific thing - you have to also understand the context of what they would have compared what Moses wrote to. Again, we read Moses' accounts through modern lenses.

Thanks Philip, I'll note down the book get it in Kindle.
I'm interested to know what surrounding cultures thought, and Jac found Egyptian culture significant to my own interpretation.

You make valid observations too.
Which all makes it suspect about how exactly YEC does accept "ordinary days" as any normal person would understand them to be.

Something I hate with this, is finding the words.
I just had my wife read my last post and she went cross-eyed.
So I re-edited some paragraphs at the start to try and make clearer a further point.

That point being, by injecting an alternative supernatural light source at day one that exists through to at least day 4 when the Sun is created,
what we actually have is not an "ordinary day" in any real sense of that term, but rather "supernatural days" if you will.
Therefore we really have "supernatural ordinary days" on a YEC interpretation - a bit of an oxymoron.