To which view of the Creation days do you hold?

[Deleted member 13126]

I didn't say anything about science. My point was the very measurement used to determine how long a day is missing. It is similar to saying "sunrise" without having a sun present.

I see what you’re saying. But in the context of God’s Word being settled in Heaven before the foundation of the world, the events being recorded inside of time by a human author and supernaturally preserved, and God being sovereign over all of the aforementioned, I think day means day. That is to say, He knew how long it took, He knew what would be written down, knew what men would think of what He wrote, knew about this thread online millennia in the future, and isn’t the author of confusion.

To that end, I personally think folks have a better case by taking the position that day means something other than 24 hours (say, a thousand years) rather than saying day meant something pre-sun than it did post-sun in the creation account. The Lord of Time has spoken and we have His Word today.

 

[LittleFaith]

Not a problem for God whatsoever and since He was the only one around doing the creating, observing, and reporting (angels dont count) that they were “days” and using the same language patterns throughout all of Genesis 1, with or without the sun, it is hard to exegetically defend days of varying lengths in my opinion.

Think about it, why would God use different periods of time throughout the creation process but then model our weeks and sabbaths after that same creation process?

Has anyone ever discussed the fact that the sabbath year was also modeled after the creation pattern? Or are there good reasons for discounting that as not relevant to the discussion at hand?

It doesn't seem to me to undermine the pattern of work and rest to posit non-literal days, as the command is still equally valid even if applied in an analogical way.

 

[RamistThomist]

, I think day means day.

I agree a day means a day, but yom does not always mean 24 hours in Scripture. In Genesis when Jacob is fleeing, he is said to have ridden for three days. We know that he did not ride 72 hours straight. Day means light. Does that prove old earth or disprove YEC? Of course not, only to show that certain YEC arguments are not absolute.

 

[earl40]

Not a problem for God whatsoever and since He was the only one around doing the creating, observing, and reporting (angels dont count) that they were “days” and using the same language patterns throughout all of Genesis 1, with or without the sun, it is hard to exegetically defend days of varying lengths in my opinion.

Think about it, why would God use different periods of time throughout the creation process but then model our weeks and sabbaths after that same creation process?

Why don't angels count? The reason I ask is because In my most humble opinion angels are within time unlike God.

 

[No Other Name]

I didn't say anything about science. My point was the very measurement used to determine how long a day is missing. It is similar to saying "sunrise" without having a sun present.

I wasn't going to post here again, but I feel I have to given this statement. The very measurement used to determine the length of a day is not missing. The earth exists and is rotating on its axis. If the sun were to vanish supernaturally, would we still not mark days? As God reveals created order to Moses, he uses the surface of the earth as the frame of reference and assumes standard knowledge of any standard day as he reveals these things. Isn't it remarkable that Moses probably had a geocentric understanding of the sun yet Gen. 1 is written from earth's perspective as to give no issue for anyone regardless of if they were stuck in a past geocentrism vs. modern heliocentrism?

EDIT: Anyway, it is not at all "similar to saying 'sunrise' without a sun present". On Day 4, God creates the sun to mark the days - which were already existent due to the earth and its rotation.

 

[Northern Crofter]

On Day 4, God creates the sun to mark the days - which were already existent due to the earth and its rotation.

This is a point that is often forgotten - the celestial bodies were created to mark and divide time, they do not create time. Time might be considered the first thing God created in the universe considering the Scriptures open with "In the beginning" - that is when time began, not when the celestial dividers of time were created (granted that is not their only purpose, but it was their first).

Genesis 1.14-19:

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

"God then made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made also the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to shine upon the earth, and to rule in the day, and in the night, and to separate the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

"So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

We should also - to keep our minds humble - not forget that our division of hours and minutes and seconds is not a division created by God, which is why a day is not exactly 24 hours and a year is not exactly 365 days. His created order was perfect and very good - our comprehension and attempts to systematize it in order to understand it are not perfect or nearly as good!

 

[DanSSwing]

This is surely overcomplicating the matter. As said above, there was no person around to experience this period before the creation of the sun so what does it really matter? Scripture tells us Creation took six days and the Lord rested on the seventh, which is the Sabbath. The Sabbath is one normal, 24 hour day and the first Sabbath was the seventh day after the six of the work of creation. That is what we are told by God as to the period of creation. We should take Him at His word instead of trying to "scientifically" explain supposed inconsistencies.

Rather than trying to scientifically explain supposed inconsistencies, if we can understand what the Biblical parameters for creation were, that would establish the framework within which science can operate accurately, as opposed to letting atheistic scientific conjecture serve as the framework and then trying to twist the Bible to support that in the name of neutrality. #datpresup

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I didn't say anything about science. My point was the very measurement used to determine how long a day is missing. It is similar to saying "sunrise" without having a sun present.

I sometimes wonder if "evening and morning" are idioms. Just as it may seem odd, from an exacting perspective, to wonder why evening and morning is present without a sun, it is worth asking why it is recorded as "evening and morning" if no lights existed but it's supposed to mark an indefinite period of time.

 

[No Other Name]

I sometimes wonder if "evening and morning" are idioms.

How so? Particularly when there is Light which is called day and Darkness which is called night before the sun was created.

As Moses is being inspired to write this, why would anyone presume a different meaning to "evening" and "morning" without distinct commentary as to the shift in the time dimension inherent in the general understanding everyone has of these words?

Would one imagine the earth is not rotating in Days 1-3? Or rotating but much slower? Why?

If one cedes the likelihood - or at least the possibility - of the rotation of the earth in Days 1-3, then why wouldn't "evening" and "morning" mean exactly what they always mean?

Does any other miracle require such idiomatic use of language? When the sun and moon stop their celestial tracks during Joshua's battle, do we need to use any idioms? Jonah and the fish? Plagues in Egypt? Water into wine? Resurrection events - including the greatest miracle of all?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

How so? Particularly when there is Light which is called day and Darkness which is called night before the sun was created.

As Moses is being inspired to write this, why would anyone presume a different meaning to "evening" and "morning" without distinct commentary as to the shift in the time dimension inherent in the general understanding everyone has of these words?

Would one imagine the earth is not rotating in Days 1-3? Or rotating but much slower? Why?

If one cedes the likelihood - or at least the possibility - of the rotation of the earth in Days 1-3, then why wouldn't "evening" and "morning" mean exactly what they always mean?

Does any other miracle require such idiomatic use of language? When the sun and moon stop their celestial tracks during Joshua's battle, do we need to use any idioms? Jonah and the fish? Plagues in Egypt? Water into wine? Resurrection events - including the greatest miracle of all?

My point in calling it an idiom wasn't to deny that it marked a day but to wonder if it was an idiom that meant the same thing.

In other words, the idiom was as much about just noting that a day has gone by as it is phenomenological.

The further point I was making is that it is just as "weird" or more so to apply the "morning and evening" idiom to some long age. Someone might argue, in other words, that "morning and evening" seem strange if the sun isn't created yet, but it's even stranger to look at the plain text and say that "morning and evening" means something different in each verse with respect to a length of time. Someone might use the term yom as referring to a longer period of time but the "morning and evening" is inconvenient for that argument.

 

[Afterthought]

Numbers 7 is a useful comparison.

Evening before morning makes sense when one considers that God did his work during the day, so evening would happen next and then the morning upon which the next day would dawn--evening and morning being the markers of division between day and night. We see this sort of thing in Exodus 16:8 also.

Alternatively, the latter part of the day is put before the beginning part (or the day is considered from one evening to another), as it is in other Scriptures, e.g., Psalm 55:17, Daniel 8:26 for various reasons that intepreters have mentioned.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Someone might argue, in other words, that "morning and evening" seem strange if the sun isn't created yet

This would only be true if they presuppose that morning and evening are defined by the rising and setting of the sun. But the Scriptures seem to be clearly stating that morning and evening relate to light/day and dark/night. Note the parallels in Genesis 1.14-19:

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

"God then made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made also the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to shine upon the earth, and to rule in the day, and in the night, and to separate the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

"So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Remember, too, that evening and morning make up a day (starting at sundown, not the other way around as we think of it today - which is why the Sabbath in the Jewish economy began at sundown). Consider, too, that God began with "darkness" (Gen.1.2) and then first created "light" (v.3).

It should also be pointed out that "day" (yowm/י֥וֹם) can mean both 1/2 a day (i.e. the half when the sun "rules" vs. the other half when the moon "rules" - see text above) or a full day ("evening and morning").

My point in calling it an idiom wasn't to deny that it marked a day but to wonder if it was an idiom that meant the same thing.

I do not think it is possible to see "evening and morning" as an idiom in this text. The (Oxford) dictionary definition of an idiom is "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words" and I would submit that the meaning of "evening and morning" is deducible from those words since the full context includes the word "day." Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "if it was an idiom that meant the same thing" - I don't think an idiom by nature/definition ever means the same thing as the plain meaning of the words that make up an idiomatic phrase.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Has anyone ever discussed the fact that the sabbath year was also modeled after the creation pattern? Or are there good reasons for discounting that as not relevant to the discussion at hand?

It doesn't seem to me to undermine the pattern of work and rest to posit non-literal days, as the command is still equally valid even if applied in an analogical way.

It may be modelled on the Creation pattern but is a distinct thing. Sabbath years are clearly described as years, and the Sabbath day as a day.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This would only be true if they presuppose that morning and evening are defined by the rising and setting of the sun. But the Scriptures seem to be clearly stating that morning and evening relate to light/day and dark/night. Note the parallels in Genesis 1.14-19:

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

"God then made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made also the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to shine upon the earth, and to rule in the day, and in the night, and to separate the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

"So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Remember, too, that evening and morning make up a day (starting at sundown, not the other way around as we think of it today - which is why the Sabbath in the Jewish economy began at sundown). Consider, too, that God began with "darkness" (Gen.1.2) and then first created "light" (v.3).

It should also be pointed out that "day" (yowm/י֥וֹם) can mean both 1/2 a day (i.e. the half when the sun "rules" vs. the other half when the moon "rules" - see text above) or a full day ("evening and morning").

I do not think it is possible to see "evening and morning" as an idiom in this text. The (Oxford) dictionary definition of an idiom is "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words" and I would submit that the meaning of "evening and morning" is deducible from those words since the full context includes the word "day." Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "if it was an idiom that meant the same thing" - I don't think an idiom by nature/definition ever means the same thing as the plain meaning of the words that make up an idiomatic phrase.

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. I think "morning and evening" meant a "day" to the Hebrews and it is used as such.

I'm not sure if you're paying attention to what I'm writing, but the point I'm making that "Someone might argue, in other words, that "morning and evening" seem strange if the sun isn't created yet" is that some, indeed, do argue that very point since "morning and evening" is used preceding the creation of the sun.

An idiom is more than simply the first definition but is also a term used that is peculiar to a particular culture. For instance, the Hebrews mark years differently than we do and a King could have been in his "second year" of rule even if he only reigned for a month because time was marked by the turning of the year rather than counting "whole years". It's not that the term "year" is unrelated to a time span but it is a way of marking time and using an idiom that we don't use and so a person who doesn't understand that usage may not realize how long a king actually ruled. That's also true of how days were marked.

My point is that "evening and morning" in the text is used the same way in every Creation Day. Many focus only on the word yom, translated as "day" and argue that it's not always the same length of time. My point, if you're paying attention is that "morning and evening" would likely have been understood as a "normal day" to Moses and those reading it. It doesn't matter, then, that there's no sun to mark the passage of time.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. I think "morning and evening" meant a "day" to the Hebrews and it is used as such.

I'm not sure if you're paying attention to what I'm writing, but the point I'm making that "Someone might argue, in other words, that "morning and evening" seem strange if the sun isn't created yet" is that some, indeed, do argue that very point since "morning and evening" is used preceding the creation of the sun.

An idiom is more than simply the first definition but is also a term used that is peculiar to a particular culture. For instance, the Hebrews mark years differently than we do and a King could have been in his "second year" of rule even if he only reigned for a month because time was marked by the turning of the year rather than counting "whole years". It's not that the term "year" is unrelated to a time span but it is a way of marking time and using an idiom that we don't use and so a person who doesn't understand that usage may not realize how long a king actually ruled. That's also true of how days were marked.

My point is that "evening and morning" in the text is used the same way in every Creation Day. Many focus only on the word yom, translated as "day" and argue that it's not always the same length of time. My point, if you're paying attention is that "morning and evening" would likely have been understood as a "normal day" to Moses and those reading it. It doesn't matter, then, that there's no sun to mark the passage of time.

I was trying to follow you but I admit you lost me a few times when you switch things around (like your final paragraph above where "evening and morning" become "morning and evening" a few sentences later - I tried to make the point that the order is intentional). I still maintain that those who "...might argue... that "morning and evening" [or "evening and morning" according to Scripture] seem strange if the sun isn't created yet" fail to understand that the purpose of the sun is not to establish morning and evening.

As for idioms, I suppose we have different definitions. But I maintain caution against suggesting literary devices that introduce a non-literal inrepretation into a passage that does not need them to be understood.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As for idioms, I suppose we have different definitions. But I maintain caution against suggesting literary devices that introduce a non-literal inrepretation into a passage that does not need them to be understood.

Well, I'm using the commonly understood definition of an idiom. Look it up in the Dictionary for the range of definitions that include the way that cultures use certain words. It is grammatico-historical and "literal" to understand what another culture means by a word that is translated into our language.

Consider, for instance, that Christ rose on the "third day". Since the Jews marked days by sundown, Christ died on Friday afternoon and was raised on Sunday morning. By our reckoning, he rose a day and a half after He died. By Jewish reckoning, Friday was the first day of His death, Saturday the second, and Sunday the third.

"Morning and Evening" would constitute a full day. They have less to do with how someone might misunderstand the text if they thought they were being "literal" and marking the position of the sun. Even the way the people would have said: "evening and morning" (seemingly out of order in the way we think) would be a way they spoke about things that we need to understand.

I'm not sure if you have any training in the Biblical languages or the tools of exegesis, but my point is to syntactically understand grammatico-historical usage. I'm affirming that "evening and morning" means a normal day regardless of whether a sun is present as I think that people looking backward from their own perspective may miss if they interpret the words based on how they understand them. Proper interpretation is to establish how Moses would have understood those words.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Consider, for instance, that Christ rose on the "third day". Since the Jews marked days by sundown, Christ died on Friday afternoon and was raised on Sunday morning. By our reckoning, he rose a day and a half after He died.

As I noted above (#72), "day" (yowm/י֥וֹם) can mean both 1/2 a day (i.e. the half when the sun "rules") or a full day ("evening and morning"), even in the context of the same passage of Scripture (as in Genesis 1.5 where it is used both ways: "And God called the Light, yowm/י֥וֹם, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first yowm/י֥וֹם."). By your reckoning ("Since the Jews marked days by sundown...") Christ was only dead for 2 days (Friday sundown, and Saturday sundown). By my exegetical reckoning of Scripture (first sentence of this paragraph) He was in the grave three days. This is not unique to the Jewish economy - if someone on Monday evening tells me they will see me in three days, I would not reckon they will see me in exactly in 72 hours.

"Morning and Evening" would constitute a full day. They have less to do with how someone might misunderstand the text if they thought they were being "literal" and marking the position of the sun.

I'm affirming that "evening and morning" means a normal day regardless of whether a sun is present....

So we have been in agreement the whole time?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So we have been in agreement the whole time?

With the exception that you don't seem to understand that idiom has more than the first meaning in the dictionary.

If you read what I wrote to begin with, my main point was to communicate that the language of Genesis regarding "morning and evening" (or evening and morning in English Bibles) doesn't make a lot of sense in an indefinite time view. I clarified this point repeatedly and you kept arguing about points I wasn't making. Read back what I wrote each time and you'll discover the source of my exasperation trying to state and restate and restate the same basic point.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Brother,

With the exception that you don't seem to understand that idiom has more than the first meaning in the dictionary.

If you read what I wrote to begin with, my main point was to communicate that the language of Genesis regarding "morning and evening" (or evening and morning in English Bibles) doesn't make a lot of sense in an indefinite time view. I clarified this point repeatedly and you kept arguing about points I wasn't making. Read back what I wrote each time and you'll discover the source of my exasperation trying to state and restate and restate the same basic point.

Brother, I really don't understand the combative tone. You introduced an idiomatic reading of Genesis 1: "I sometimes wonder if "evening and morning" are idioms" (#68 above). I challenged that because, regardless of what definition you use, an idiom is a figure of speech whose meaning lies beyond the plain meaning of the words, and I am cautious of using such textual approaches to interpret Scripture when the plain meaning seems sufficiently clear. If you are affirming that the phrase "evening and morning" means a normal day, why are you introducing the idea that the phrase could be idiomatic? This phrase ("There was evening and there was morning") appears nowhere else outside of Genesis 1 (the evening/morning pattern appears in Daniel 8 and Psalm 55, but without the repeated verb) so I find it hard to accept the possibility that it is a Hebraic idiom. If your point is "to syntactically understand grammatico-historical usage," I don't see any grammatical or historical evidence for it being an idiom.

You have questioned whether I have "any training in the Biblical languages or the tools of exegesis." I am not interested in posting my bona fides - if you want to know what degrees I have and what universities I got them from, contact me privately and I would be happy to share that information. Suffice it to say, I have enough courses in the Bible as Literature for a minor, and I am qualified and certified to teach multiple subjects at the secondary and post-secondary level in my state, one of which is English, which I currently teach, and that curriculum includes idioms and other figures of speech, so I feel I have enough training for this discussion.

I am not out to argue points you don't make, but when your responses contain points that I don't believe are accurate, I feel obliged to comment. For example:

the language of Genesis regarding "morning and evening" (or evening and morning in English Bibles)

"Evening and morning" is the order in English translations because it is the order in the original (Hebrew) language. I believe that order is important to the structure of the passage.

Proper interpretation is to establish how Moses would have understood those words.

I must disagree - the prophets did not always understand the words they were writing (see, for example, Ephesians 3.1-11, I Peter 1.9-12, II Peter 1.19-21). Proper interpretation is the attempt to understand what God would have us (His people, privately and collectively, currently and progressively) to understand by His Word.

I'm trying not to become exasperated myself. If you prefer the last word, feel free - I think I've said all I prefer to say at this point. Thank you for your time serving as a staff member on PB.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brother,

Brother, I really don't understand the combative tone. You introduced an idiomatic reading of Genesis 1: "I sometimes wonder if "evening and morning" are idioms" (#68 above). I challenged that because, regardless of what definition you use, an idiom is a figure of speech whose meaning lies beyond the plain meaning of the words, and I am cautious of using such textual approaches to interpret Scripture when the plain meaning seems sufficiently clear. If you are affirming that the phrase "evening and morning" means a normal day, why are you introducing the idea that the phrase could be idiomatic? This phrase ("There was evening and there was morning") appears nowhere else outside of Genesis 1 (the evening/morning pattern appears in Daniel 8 and Psalm 55, but without the repeated verb) so I find it hard to accept the possibility that it is a Hebraic idiom. If your point is "to syntactically understand grammatico-historical usage," I don't see any grammatical or historical evidence for it being an idiom.

You have questioned whether I have "any training in the Biblical languages or the tools of exegesis." I am not interested in posting my bona fides - if you want to know what degrees I have and what universities I got them from, contact me privately and I would be happy to share that information. Suffice it to say, I have enough courses in the Bible as Literature for a minor, and I am qualified and certified to teach multiple subjects at the secondary and post-secondary level in my state, one of which is English, which I currently teach, and that curriculum includes idioms and other figures of speech, so I feel I have enough training for this discussion.

I am not out to argue points you don't make, but when your responses contain points that I don't believe are accurate, I feel obliged to comment. For example:

"Evening and morning" is the order in English translations because it is the order in the original (Hebrew) language. I believe that order is important to the structure of the passage.

I must disagree - the prophets did not always understand the words they were writing (see, for example, Ephesians 3.1-11, I Peter 1.9-12, II Peter 1.19-21). Proper interpretation is the attempt to understand what God would have us (His people, privately and collectively, currently and progressively) to understand by His Word.

I'm trying not to become exasperated myself. If you prefer the last word, feel free - I think I've said all I prefer to say at this point. Thank you for your time serving as a staff member on PB.

I'm exasperated because you keep missing the basic point I'm making.

From one definition that comports with how Webster defines it: "An idiom is a phrase that is more than the sum of its parts, or in other words, has more of a meaning than the individual words used in the phrase. Examples include pay the piper, for the birds, and pulling one’s leg. Idiom is also a synonym for dialect, a way of speech particular to a geographical area that has specific vocabulary, syntax, and grammar. Finally, it can be used to describe a method of expression particular to a person, time period, or object."

Maybe you're teaching your kids that idiom means only one thing, but that's incorrect. All degrees or vocation aside, it's just wrong.

I'm not saying that evening and morning as individual words have meanings in the first sense above. I'm not saying that evening is an idiomatic expression or that morning means something that it doesn't mean.

What I am saying is that "evening and morning" have a grammatico-historical meaning that needs to be understood according to the culture and time that recorded the words together as "evening and morning". It is not an idiom because the meaning lies beyond the words but because it is written by a people from a different culture and time than our own.

I initially wrote the word order wrong, but the point was to focus on the "evening and morning" idiom itself. The point in affirming it as an idiom actually guards against ways to see the inclusion of those terms in isolation without considering the significance of how taken together, they communicate something definitive to the writer and original audience. Since, when "evening and morning" in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures always comport to a normal day when in a narrative, it guards against other ways of thinking of evening and morning in a different way.

I have a Seminary degree. I'm noting this because I have been formally trained over five grueling Semesters on language, exegesis, and hermeneutics. The comment that not every prophet understood the future import of what they wrote is a throwaway comment in this discussion. The important discussion, for those who have the tools of exegesis to understand my point, is that the combination of the words together has import that comes out when you study how the Hebrews used the word combination.

 

[No Other Name]

What I am saying is that "evening and morning" have a grammatico-historical meaning that needs to be understood according to the culture and time that recorded the words together as "evening and morning". It is not an idiom because the meaning lies beyond the words but because it is written by a people from a different culture and time than our own.

Perhaps your exasperation would be lessened if you would clarify your statements with specific examples? In what way is the meaning different specifically? If Gen. 1 is not amenable for clarification, then why isn't my original question to you appropriate:

What other miracle uses idioms in such a way that the time-like nature of the miracle is reliant on ancient grammar and cultural parameters like Gen 1 seems to?

Or what other non-miraculous Biblical instance in any form be it narrative, poetry, prophecy etc, - what other Scriptural use of "evening" and "morning" reveal its potential confusion across centuries and cultures?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Perhaps your exasperation would be lessened if you would clarify your statements with specific examples? In what way is the meaning different specifically? If Gen. 1 is not amenable for clarification, then why isn't my original question to you appropriate:

What other miracle uses idioms in such a way that the time-like nature of the miracle is reliant on ancient grammar and cultural parameters like Gen 1 seems to?

Or what other non-miraculous Biblical instance in any form be it narrative, poetry, prophecy etc, - what other Scriptural use of "evening" and "morning" reveal its potential confusion across centuries and cultures?

I don't even know how you are forming the questions about miracles or prophecy based on what I wrote.

I never wrote that its point was obscure but merely that it is a cultural expression just like "the heavens and the earth" are expressions that need to be understood according to grammatico-historical exegesis.

All I'm trying to communicate is that we take not only words individually, but word combinations and seek to establish their syntax according to the rules of grammar as they were used in the time period they were used. I don't know if you have access to a lexicon but it is one way of getting at a range of meanings of words. Exegetical study (or in some cases historical documents) can establish how words function together. As one example in Greek, the Granville-Sharp rule in Greek has import that makes the formation of an articular substantive *and* another substantive form a unit. It's not always evident in English but is evident when you know the language or the culture. It doesn't reveal some hidden meaning but the intended meaning and it doesn't necessarily come across in translation simply because it would require an accompanying explanation that the rule is present.

Now, someone might say: "Well, you didn't say that when you said that 'Evening and Morning' are probably idioms", but I'm not the one who challenged the notion that there was a cultural import to the words by limiting the definition of idiom to one meaning of the word.

If my explanation does not explain this further then please take up a few books like Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson or Biblical Exegesis texts or even some language textbooks. I wrote in shorthand for those who might understand the point I was making and it is wearisome to keep being challenged on the basic point by those who are missing the basic point. If asked, rather than challenged and "schooled", I might have explained this but I repeatedly find myself in the way of those who are not asking but trying to instruct me about points I'm not making.

 

[No Other Name]

Brother, I am literally asking what other meaning "evening and morning" could have? What other meaning they have shown to have had in other instances in Scripture? Or perhaps historical documents from the same era?

When you say: "Idiom is also a synonym for dialect, a way of speech particular to a geographical area that has specific vocabulary, syntax, and grammar. Finally, it can be used to describe a method of expression particular to a person, time period, or object." (bolded by yourself)

how does that fit in our discussion of the regular understanding of "day" as it is described by "evening and morning" being the normal understanding of ~24 hours of rotation on the earth's axis?

I am genuinely confused because you first said you wondered whether "evening and morning" were idioms. Which suggested (at first) that you were inclined to an indefinite time period for the creation days.

Later, your meaning of idiom became clearer, but your purpose for posting became less clear. If I can go back to one of your earlier posts:

I think "morning and evening" meant a "day" to the Hebrews and it is used as such.

I liked this and was poised to like this post as a whole here.

but the point I'm making that "Someone might argue, in other words, that "morning and evening" seem strange if the sun isn't created yet" is that some, indeed, do argue that very point since "morning and evening" is used preceding the creation of the sun.

Then - at this point - I was confused again. I still do not know what your position is here if "evening and morning" means a day and is used as such, why would anyone have the reasonable ability to argue that the sun is what makes the day rather than marks the day?

Before you say that is not your intent, it seems to me that is a direct implication of the statement here. If I am inferring incorrectly, please clarify.

For instance, the Hebrews mark years differently than we do and a King could have been in his "second year" of rule even if he only reigned for a month because time was marked by the turning of the year rather than counting "whole years". It's not that the term "year" is unrelated to a time span but it is a way of marking time and using an idiom that we don't use and so a person who doesn't understand that usage may not realize how long a king actually ruled. That's also true of how days were marked.

I have read about the "year" as you have described it here yet I still do not understand how that would affect the understanding of "evening and morning" in how the Hebrews marked days? How does this fact help us in Gen. 1, please?

It doesn't matter, then, that there's no sun to mark the passage of time.

Here I was unsure if you then agreed with literal 24 hour days? When reading you further, you say

The point in affirming it as an idiom actually guards against ways to see the inclusion of those terms in isolation without considering the significance of how taken together, they communicate something definitive to the writer and original audience.

Yes ok. This is why I am asking my questions. What is being communicated definitively to the writer and original audience within the grammar/culture that a normal person in 2023 America does not grasp?

When further examples were not forthcoming, I then was asking across Scripture and genres (poetry, history, prophecy etc) if there were other grammatical clues in the rest of the OT that you were aware of regarding "days" as relates to "evening and morning" that illustrates your definition of idiomatic usage that may shed light on Gen. 1?

I am literally asking. Genuinely. I always have been.

What is disheartening are the following comments:

I have a Seminary degree. I'm noting this because I have been formally trained over five grueling Semesters on language, exegesis, and hermeneutics.

please take up a few books

it is wearisome to keep being challenged on the basic point by those who are missing the basic point. If asked, rather than challenged and "schooled", I might have explained this but I repeatedly find myself in the way of those who are not asking but trying to instruct me about points I'm not making.

Allowing for charitable reading and assuming the best, I fully believe you are not "pulling rank" here. I write these remarks off as simply sage advice for all of us to keep learning more in this age of free information.

What I would ask is that the same charity be extended to others and maybe not everyone posting here is trying to "school" you or "instruct you in points you are not making"?

Thanks in advance. God bless you.

 

[MyCrows]

Guys... I would love to back one of you up in your comments, but I am completely confused as to what is being argued.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brother, I am literally asking what other meaning "evening and morning" could have? What other meaning they have shown to have had in other instances in Scripture? Or perhaps historical documents from the same era?

When you say: "Idiom is also a synonym for dialect, a way of speech particular to a geographical area that has specific vocabulary, syntax, and grammar. Finally, it can be used to describe a method of expression particular to a person, time period, or object." (bolded by yourself)

how does that fit in our discussion of the regular understanding of "day" as it is described by "evening and morning" being the normal understanding of ~24 hours of rotation on the earth's axis?

I am genuinely confused because you first said you wondered whether "evening and morning" were idioms. Which suggested (at first) that you were inclined to an indefinite time period for the creation days.

Later, your meaning of idiom became clearer, but your purpose for posting became less clear. If I can go back to one of your earlier posts:



I liked this and was poised to like this post as a whole here.


Then - at this point - I was confused again. I still do not know what your position is here if "evening and morning" means a day and is used as such, why would anyone have the reasonable ability to argue that the sun is what makes the day rather than marks the day?

Before you say that is not your intent, it seems to me that is a direct implication of the statement here. If I am inferring incorrectly, please clarify.


I have read about the "year" as you have described it here yet I still do not understand how that would affect the understanding of "evening and morning" in how the Hebrews marked days? How does this fact help us in Gen. 1, please?


Here I was unsure if you then agreed with literal 24 hour days? When reading you further, you say



Yes ok. This is why I am asking my questions. What is being communicated definitively to the writer and original audience within the grammar/culture that a normal person in 2023 America does not grasp?

When further examples were not forthcoming, I then was asking across Scripture and genres (poetry, history, prophecy etc) if there were other grammatical clues in the rest of the OT that you were aware of regarding "days" as relates to "evening and morning" that illustrates your definition of idiomatic usage that may shed light on Gen. 1?

I am literally asking. Genuinely. I always have been.

What is disheartening are the following comments:






Allowing for charitable reading and assuming the best, I fully believe you are not "pulling rank" here. I write these remarks off as simply sage advice for all of us to keep learning more in this age of free information.

What I would ask is that the same charity be extended to others and maybe not everyone posting here is trying to "school" you or "instruct you in points you are not making"?

Thanks in advance. God bless you.

I can't answer every question you posed.

When I made my initial comment about "evening and morning" being an idiom, I was talking about the fact , if some person landed on the Genesis narrative with a desire to translate "yom" in some other way than a day, then he has to deal with the fact that "evening and morning" are mentioned in every Creation day recorded.

The person, for instance, who wants to argue "indefinite periods of time" would come to the text and say: "Well, one of the reasons they may argue for that is because there is no sun in the first days mentioned". I wasn't presenting my own view but how some do, in fact, argue.

I pointed out that while (to some) the idea that the idea of yom could be determined as indeterminate, they would be faced with the pesky addition that the text records "evening and morning" and proper exegesis would have to deal with that point.

What does "evening and morning" convey? I'm not asking the question, I'm posing the question that exegesis requires. It is an expression that the Hebrews would be familiar with that recapitulates the idea that a period that conveys a normal day has transpired. That's the way it is used elsewhere for similar parts of Scripture that use that language. It's a way of speaking and informs how to handle the text.

The initial reply focused on the use of my use of the word idiom and errantly applied a definition of the word I did not employ. It also placed on my lips words I did not utter when I noted that "some" might argue in this way. This led to an elaborate explanation of why the things I did not say about "evening and morning" couldn't mean what "some" other person would argue. This was accompanied by an insistence that an idiom only means one thing and that the words would mean something other than what they naturally meant.

I tried to provide further examples of how Hebrews used words like years in some contexts to note how it is important to understand how they use those words only to illustrate how language is idiomatic only to have those specific examples argued with as if I was doing something other than illustrate how historical exegesis works. With every illustration, the illustration was argued with as if my point is to make the Scripture's words obscured to correct my supposed misunderstanding with the proper understanding.

I mentioned my Seminary training to get at whether or not one has the facility to interact with the basic point about how language has to be understood according to its historical usage. I've been repeatedly told I don't know what an idiom is combined with the fact that when I note what "some" might say that what "some" might say is attributed to me.

I will close by saying that when you learn Biblical languages and the tools of exegesis, you realize that there is more to interpreting a text than looking at how translators interpreted the text in order to convey it into another language. That doesn't mean that one cannot profit from the translation, but it is to say that it is useful to understand original constructions and how words, phrases, and sentences work syntactically.

I am certain I could have been more patient but an "in your face" rebuttal of points I was not making is frustrating, especially when others were stubbornly refusing to even check a dictionary to confirm their error regarding what an idiom is. I certainly owe those less trained in the process some patience, but when you're being lectured in error about basic points and having words put in your moth it tries one's patience.

 

[py3ak]

For everyone misunderstanding Rich, his basic point is:
"Evening and morning" narrow down the range of meaning that can legitimately be given to "day." Anyone arguing against ordinary days needs to reckon with the significance of "evening and morning."

For Rich, there is a meme to deploy. "Heh, well, if your ideology is correct, then why do I aggressively misunderstand what you actually believe?"

 

[En Kristo]

Moses claims that God created the world in 6 days. Later he tells us how we are to understand those days:

Ex. 20:8, 11: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ...11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I've never heard anyone voice my particular view of the first three chapters of Genesis. However, it seems so obvious that surely many others must have seen it. The issue presented to Adam in chapter 3 of Genesis is simply this, whether or not to take the word of God as authoritative. He has the choice to either accept the word of God as authoritative or allow something else to overrule it. The issue is straight forward: "Did God say...?" That is the central issue facing Adam and through him all of mankind.

One aspect of the genius of the creation account is that it isn't merely an account of the history of creation. It goes a step further and puts the reader in a situation parallel to the situation of Adam. God could have created the cosmos any way that he wished with whatever final appearance he wanted it to have, but he created it in such a way as to be a test. As we read the account of Adam wrestling with the temptation (Did God really say?), we are confronted with the identical test. Do we believe what God said? As we read the account, it is as if we are standing in the Garden of Eden, answering the question for ourselves. "Did God really say?"

If you affirm the words on the page, that creation was accomplished by God in 6 days, you pass the test. That test comes with blessings: humility, submission to the authority of the Bible, the acceptance of God's supernatural works, trust in the reliability of scripture and many others.

If you fail the test, you set yourself up for a struggle with the rest of scripture for the simple reason that if you cannot rest assured in one account, you can never truly rest assured in any account.

Obviously, some passages of scripture are more clear than others. I suppose we may never come to a settled conclusion on the first few verses of Genesis 6, for example. But in the case of the creation account, the words on the page are straight forward. They are simple. Anyone can understand them. Any difficulty accepting them at face value is not attributable to grammar or difficulties in the language. The difficulty stems from reluctance to commit to the scripture as not merely a truthful account, but in fact the ground of all truth. The creator of the universe did not only create everything that exists, but in his written word he tells us how we are to interpret every other phenomena in existence.

I have always felt sorry for those who cannot accept the account of creation as written. I truly believe that they are missing out.

Grits

 

[Northern Crofter]

"evening and morning" in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures always comport to a normal day when in a narrative

"evening and morning"... is an expression that the Hebrews would be familiar with that recapitulates the idea that a period that conveys a normal day has transpired. That's the way it is used elsewhere for similar parts of Scripture that use that language.

Could you provide some examples of where this phrase is used in Scripture to mean a normal day?

 

[MyCrows]

Now on the day that the tabernacle was raised up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the Testimony;
from evening until morning it was above the tabernacle like the appearance of fire.
So it was always: the cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night. Whenever the cloud was taken up from above the tabernacle, after that the children of Israel would journey; and in the place where the cloud settled, there the children of Israel would pitch their tents.
At the command of the LORD the children of Israel would journey, and at the command of the LORD they would camp; as long as the cloud stayed above the tabernacle they remained encamped.
Even when the cloud continued long, many days above the tabernacle, the children of Israel kept the charge of the LORD and did not journey.
So it was, when the cloud was above the tabernacle a few days: according to the command of the LORD they would remain encamped, and according to the command of the LORD they would journey.
So it was, when the cloud remained only from evening until morning: when the cloud was taken up in the morning, then they would journey; whether by day or by night, whenever the cloud was taken up, they would journey. Whether it was two days, a month, or a year that the cloud remained above the tabernacle, the children of Israel would remain encamped and not journey; but when it was taken up, they would journey.
At the command of the LORD they remained encamped, and at the command of the LORD they journeyed; they kept the charge of the LORD, at the command of the LORD by the hand of Moses.

Numbers 9:15-23

 

[Northern Crofter]

Now on the day that the tabernacle was raised up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the Testimony;
from evening until morning it was above the tabernacle like the appearance of fire.
So it was always: the cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night. Whenever the cloud was taken up from above the tabernacle, after that the children of Israel would journey; and in the place where the cloud settled, there the children of Israel would pitch their tents.
At the command of the LORD the children of Israel would journey, and at the command of the LORD they would camp; as long as the cloud stayed above the tabernacle they remained encamped.
Even when the cloud continued long, many days above the tabernacle, the children of Israel kept the charge of the LORD and did not journey.
So it was, when the cloud was above the tabernacle a few days: according to the command of the LORD they would remain encamped, and according to the command of the LORD they would journey.
So it was, when the cloud remained only from evening until morning: when the cloud was taken up in the morning, then they would journey; whether by day or by night, whenever the cloud was taken up, they would journey. Whether it was two days, a month, or a year that the cloud remained above the tabernacle, the children of Israel would remain encamped and not journey; but when it was taken up, they would journey.
At the command of the LORD they remained encamped, and at the command of the LORD they journeyed; they kept the charge of the LORD, at the command of the LORD by the hand of Moses.

Numbers 9:15-23

That is not the same phrase or the same meaning. As I pointed out in #79 above, the evening/morning pattern appears in places like Daniel 8 and Psalm 55, too, but without the repeated verb that is only found in Genesis 1: "there was evening and there was morning." That is quite different than "from evening until morning" - I would take that to mean "overnight," not a normal "24-hour" day: from evening until morning (overnight) it was fire, and from morning to evening it was acloud.

However one prefers to define or exemplify an idiom (like "pay the piper" or "pull ones leg") it has the same meaning whenever it is used.