Literal Genesis 1:3

[seer]

Simple -- if the "days" in the first Genesis story are literally one rotation of a spherical Earth then it's going to be "evening" someplace and "morning" at someplace simultaneously. Unless you believe that Elohim is localized, which of course you don't, since that would heretical.

On a flat Earth, Sol rises over one horizon and it's morning all over. When Sol sets it's evening all over. Nothing could be more simple nor more literal.

K54

P.S. Oh, and why does the Day start with evening? Isn't that ANE tradition, still held by Hebrews and Arabs today?

But if it was merely pointing to a 24 hour period then there is no problem - correct?

[klaus54]

But if it was merely pointing to a 24 hour period then there is no problem - correct?

"Evening and morning, one day" - could be anywhere from 0 seconds to 24 hours.

Why not just say one day? "Evening and morning" confuse the issue from a modern standpoint, but would have made perfect sense to the ANE Hebrew and their concept of a flat Earth. It fits a flat-Earth concept to a "T".

Hence, ANE vis-a-vis modern interpretation. Starting to get it now?

K54

[klaus54]

Again, stop bringing in more questions. Deal with one thing at a time. So what would the ancient Hebrews believe light to mean?

OK, let's stick with the "light" question.

The ANE Hebrew would have interpreted it as something other than darkness. But it's apparent from the text that light and darkness existed simultaneously before they were "separated". That makes no sense in a modern context, does it?

But today we know that physical light is EM radiation which must have a source of accelerated electric charge. It doesn't just float around in a vacuum.

Did the ANE Hebrew understand that light needs a source? There is no source indicated in the text. Light just came into existence. I'm not a concordist, but that sounds an awful lot like the nascent universe losing its opaqueness following the "chilling out" of EM from other fundamental forces.

There is NO WAY that there's a simple, unambiguous, direct, plain, literal reading of that text in light of modern physics. From our standpoint, it's much more logical to look at it in its historical context and interpret it today as metaphorical - unless you prefer the modern physics notion of the emergence of EM radiation in the early universe.

I believe you're stuck here.

Now for your idea of both the ANE Hebrew and modern physics understanding -- which in Biblical Scientific Creationism have to match. Else you can't have an unambiguous, plain, blah, blah... reading.

K54

P.S. Sorry about bringing up the "separation" question, but it's intimately tied with the notion of "light" in text.

[seer]

OK, let's stick with the "light" question.

The ANE Hebrew would have interpreted it as something other than darkness. But it's apparent from the text that light and darkness existed simultaneously before they were "separated". That makes no sense in a modern context, does it?

But today we know that physical light is EM radiation which must have a source of accelerated electric charge. It doesn't just float around in a vacuum.

Well no, that is no evident all all. The Hebrew Hiphil can mean to separate, but can also mean to make a distinction or difference. I take the text to simply mean that God is making a distinction between day and night.

Did the ANE Hebrew understand that light needs a source? There is no source indicated in the text. Light just came into existence. I'm not a concordist, but that sounds an awful lot like the nascent universe losing its opaqueness following the "chilling out" of EM from other fundamental forces.

God is said to be "light" could not His own being be the source of this first light?

[seer]

"Evening and morning, one day" - could be anywhere from 0 seconds to 24 hours.

Why not just say one day? "Evening and morning" confuse the issue from a modern standpoint, but would have made perfect sense to the ANE Hebrew and their concept of a flat Earth. It fits a flat-Earth concept to a "T".

Hence, ANE vis-a-vis modern interpretation. Starting to get it now?

K54

No, I'm not getting it. First, where does scripture teach a flat earth? Second, the text does refer to the evening and morning being a day. And if it is measuring time then there is no problem, nor does it necessarily lead to a flat earth conclusion. You have to assume that it is not speaking of a period of time to make your case - I see no reason to accept that.

[klaus54]

Well no, that is no evident all all. The Hebrew Hiphil can mean to separate, but can also mean to make a distinction or difference. I take the text to simply mean that God is making a distinction between day and night.

So, in other words, there's no clear, plain, straightforward, blah, blah... explanation that's concordant with the text and physical nature.

At one time light and darkness were together. Then they were separated. What were they BEFORE separation? Neither scientific nor logical.

Although a mystical notion like this would have been acceptable to the ANE Hebrew.

God is said to be "light" could not His own being be the source of this first light?

Do mean EM radiation? Elohim is a source of EM radiation? That doesn't square with physics, sorry.

What do you mean "Elohim is said to be light"???

And "Elohim's own being is the source of..." is meaningless because it can used to explain anything.

I though we were talking about Biblical Scientific Creationism, a la Hank Morris?

And this is all supposed to be plain, blah, blah...

You're doing a lot of machinations for something so "clear".

K54

[klaus54]

No, I'm not getting it. First, where does scripture teach a flat earth? Second, the text does refer to the evening and morning being a day. And if it is measuring time then there is no problem, nor does it necessarily lead to a flat earth conclusion. You have to assume that it is not speaking of a period of time to make your case - I see no reason to accept that.

It's "teaching" (a word you literalists love to use) a flat earth right here!!! In order for it to be "Day" all over Earth and then "Night" all over Earth, a flat Earth perfectly fits those "evening and morning" verses.

"Four corners" would be another.

"Foundations" would be another.

But you wanted to stick to the topic of "light", so...

K54

P.S. Then why does the text say "Evening and Morning, one Day"???

You're stretching more and more to fit the first Genesis story into some modern understanding.

The CLEAR reading to me is a flat Earth.

How can our CLEAR readings be different?

[klaus54]

Also there's no "distinction" between Light and Darkness" anymore than there's a distinction between a full box of chocolates and an empty box of chocolates.

Darkness is the absence of Light. It's basically nothing, or, better, an empty set.

Good luck trying to make these concepts literal to both the ANE Hebrew and a 21st Century physicist.

K54

K54

[seer]

So, in other words, there's no clear, plain, straightforward, blah, blah... explanation that's concordant with the text and physical nature.

At one time light and darkness were together. Then they were separated. What were they BEFORE separation? Neither scientific nor logical.

What are you talking about? The text doesn't say that that light and darkness were "together." Again, Hiphil could simple mean distinction. That God is simply making a distinction between day and night. There is only a problem in your mind.

Although a mystical notion like this would have been acceptable to the ANE Hebrew.

Prove that with other Hebrew writings.

Do mean EM radiation? Elohim is a source of EM radiation? That doesn't square with physics, sorry.

What do you mean "Elohim is said to be light"???

And "Elohim's own being is the source of..." is meaningless because it can used to explain anything.

I though we were talking about Biblical Scientific Creationism, a la Hank Morris?

And this is all supposed to be plain, blah, blah...

You're doing a lot of machinations for something so "clear".

K54

No, since I am a Christian and since creation was a miracle I am not limited to natural explanations. The fact is God could have easily generated this first light.

[seer]

It's "teaching" (a word you literalists love to use) a flat earth right here!!! In order for it to be "Day" all over Earth and then "Night" all over Earth, a flat Earth perfectly fits those "evening and morning" verses.

"Four corners" would be another.

"Foundations" would be another.

Really, you believe those teach a flat earth in context? So I guess this text teaches a round earth.

Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...

But you wanted to stick to the topic of "light", so...

K54

P.S. Then why does the text say "Evening and Morning, one Day"???

You're stretching more and more to fit the first Genesis story into some modern understanding.

The CLEAR reading to me is a flat Earth.

How can our CLEAR readings be different?

Nonsense, my claim is simple "evening and Morning, one Day" is speaking of a period of time. Day, morning, evening, all relate to time - why should I believe they are not? You are the one importing a different meaning without cause or back up.

[The Pixie]

Really, you believe those teach a flat earth in context? So I guess this text teaches a round earth.

Would you like to start another thread on the cosmology of the Bible? I think that would be interesting, but would not want to side-track this thread.

[seer]

Would you like to start another thread on the cosmology of the Bible? I think that would be interesting, but would not want to side-track this thread.

Nope. I take no hard or fast position on Genesis, I'm an Open Creationist in theology - I just get tired of the way people (Christian and non-christian) pick on Young Earth Creationists.

[klaus54]

What are you talking about? The text doesn't say that that light and darkness were "together." Again, Hiphil could simple mean distinction. That God is simply making a distinction between day and night. There is only a problem in your mind.

After Elohim created light, where was the darkness?

And you Elohim was the source of the EM radiation -- was this just ROYGBIV or the entire spectrum from ULF to X-rays?

If you want the story to match with modern physics, you're going have to do better than use supernatural explanations whenever you want.

So, I will assume you're not a Biblical Scientific Creationist?

Prove that with other Hebrew writings.

Prove what with other Hebrew writings? That they didn't have a modern understanding of the Cosmos?

Why don't you "prove" to me that the ANE Hebrews interpreted the story in the same manner you're trying to force in modern science + miracles (whenever it's convenient)?

No, since I am a Christian and since creation was a miracle I am not limited to natural explanations. The fact is God could have easily generated this first light.

Great. So you can bring in a supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon any time you want?

I have no idea what you mean by Elohim "generating" the first light. EM radiation chilled out shortly after the singularity started expanding. That Elohim created the singularity with the property that EM would shortly chill out makes a lot more sense than Elohim being an emitter of radiation.

Sorry, the "Big Bang" explanation of light is a LOT more plausible - and not inconsistent with theologies other than your brittle "I dunno but God did it" and "There's only one way to read Genesis literally."

BTW, the latter you've proved to be a lie. You're interpreting all over the place.

You've more than proven my point that there is no "plain, clear, direct, straightforward, simple-even-to-a child, literal" reading of the first Genesis story.

I just hope some lurkers read this, think about our exchange, and learn something by it.

K54

P.S. If believing your nonsense is a necessary part of being a Christian, then count me out.

[klaus54]

Nope. I take no hard or fast position on Genesis, I'm an Open Creationist in theology - I just get tired of the way people (Christian and non-christian) pick on Young Earth Creationists.

A hard and fast position that you can't explain but by stretching the imagination.

An "Open Creationist" is just a cop-out. You've more than proved that a "literal" unambiguous reading of Genesis is impossible,

I pick on YECs because they're an embarrassment to an educated believer. They are wrong theologically and they are WAY wrong scientifically.

I started this thread to show the arrogance and foolishness of the assertion of "plain simple ... blah blah" "reading" of Genesis.

I hope all take note.

If any other YEC wants to give THEIR plain exegesis that's compatible with the physical universe, go right ahead.

I'm ready -- but note that "seer" has already disproved your assertions.

K54

[klaus54]

Really, you believe those teach a flat earth in context? So I guess this text teaches a round earth.





Nonsense, my claim is simple "evening and Morning, one Day" is speaking of a period of time. Day, morning, evening, all relate to time - why should I believe they are not? You are the one importing a different meaning without cause or back up.

You realize there are many OT scholars that disagree that "Tov" always represents a 24-hour period.

An you still haven't explained "evening" and "morning" as global markers of time. You know, a rotating Earth and all that modern complicated astrophysics.

Oh, and why is "evening" first. "Evening and Morning the first Day". Did the first Day start with evening? Oh, that's right -- ANE cosmology.

K54