Indicators of Recent Creation or Cataclysm

[crossnote]

Is there a place in scripture where the 24 hour day is mentioned?

A day is a day and a night is a night, no question. But has it always been 24 hours?

If I remember, my understanding of the “24 hour” day this was an Egyptian innovation based on using sun dials for day and astronomical observations for night. They based their 24 hour day on a 10 hour daylight day and a 12 hour night with 2 hours of twilight, all then added together to equal 24 hours.

It was still not the standard 24 hours we know now, because the days were longer in summer, and conversely, shorter in winter as were the nights, so an hour wasn’t always 60 minutes.

I thought it was then left to the Greek astronomers to refine and standardize the 24 hour day into something like what we use today.

All this only relates from an Earth perspective and means little to the rest of God’s limitless creation as visible on a clear evening.

The closest thing I find is what is called 'watches' (forgive the pun.)
These are prayer watches and there are eight of them throughout a day as follows...
FWIW...
First Watch (The Evening Watch from 6:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M.)..Matthew 14:15-23)
Second Watch (from 9:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M.)..(Luke 12:38)
Third Watch (The Breaking of Day Watch from 12:00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M.) (Lu 12:38)
Fourth Watch (The Morning Watch from 3:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M.)..(Mt 14:25)
Fifth Watch (The Early Morning Watch from 6:00 A.M. – 9:00 A.M.)
Sixth Watch (9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.)
The Seventh Watch (12:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M.)
Eighth Watch (3:00 P.M. – 6:00 P.M.)

I would take all this with a grain of salt especially since watches 5-8 are not found in Scripture.

 

[Dave F.]

I would take all this with a grain of salt especially since watches 5-8 are not found in Scripture.

This is because it is daylight and everyone should be watching. Remember when people used to watch out for each other and weren't considered a "nosey" neighbor?

 

[Siloam]

Is there a place in scripture where the 24 hour day is mentioned?

A day is a day and a night is a night, no question. But has it always been 24 hours?

If I remember, my understanding of the “24 hour” day this was an Egyptian innovation based on using sun dials for day and astronomical observations for night. They based their 24 hour day on a 10 hour daylight day and a 12 hour night with 2 hours of twilight, all then added together to equal 24 hours.

It was still not the standard 24 hours we know now, because the days were longer in summer, and conversely, shorter in winter as were the nights, so an hour wasn’t always 60 minutes.

I thought it was then left to the Greek astronomers to refine and standardize the 24 hour day into something like what we use today.

All this only relates from an Earth perspective and means little to the rest of God’s limitless creation as visible on a clear evening.

I believe I remember that the system of 12 hour days and 12 hour nights comes from the time of the Babylonian captivity.

By the way, have you ever wondered about the predominance of time designations like "at the third hour"? At that time (three hours after dawn, or 9 AM) the sun is halfway between the horizon and zenith (high noon). This was before watches or accurate clocks.

Another interesting thing is that an hour of day (if it were accurately measured) would be longer than an hour of night in the summer, since the days are longer than the night. Similar adjustments could be made for winter.

As a further aside, the Moslem clerics have declared that since the sun is visible considerably longer at the top of the taller high rise, the practices regarding Ramadan and other sun timed events is different as one goes up.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Is there a place in scripture where the 24 hour day is mentioned?

A day is a day and a night is a night, no question. But has it always been 24 hours?

If I remember, my understanding of the “24 hour” day this was an Egyptian innovation based on using sun dials for day and astronomical observations for night. They based their 24 hour day on a 10 hour daylight day and a 12 hour night with 2 hours of twilight, all then added together to equal 24 hours.

It was still not the standard 24 hours we know now, because the days were longer in summer, and conversely, shorter in winter as were the nights, so an hour wasn’t always 60 minutes.

I thought it was then left to the Greek astronomers to refine and standardize the 24 hour day into something like what we use today.

All this only relates from an Earth perspective and means little to the rest of God’s limitless creation as visible on a clear evening.

Hebrew Yom refers to literal 24 hour day majority of the time used in OT

 

[blueskies]

Hebrew Yom refers to literal 24 hour day majority of the time used in OT

My understanding was the “Yom”referred to a day, but not day and a night and so did not represent 24 hours.
Not trusting my memory I took the liberty of checking Hebrew.org and found the following:

The Hebrew word יום (yom, Strong's #3117) means a "day," but not specifically a twenty-four hour period, but instead more generically like in "a day that something occurs." An example would be "a day of the month" (Genesis 8:4), "in that day Yahweh made a covenant" (Genesis 15:18) and "until the day" (Genesis 19:37). This word can also refer to the light part of the day in contrast to night (see Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 13:21), but the related word יומם (yomam, Strong's #3119) specifically means "daytime" as in Job 5:14. This word can be used for a time, age or season, but that is only when this word is in the plural form, which is ימים (yamim), and in my opinion should simply be translated as "days" and not time, age or season, as this can lead to incorrect interpretations of the text.

I don’t except this information to be definitive but offer it only for consideration

God Bless

 

[crossnote]

My understanding was the “Yom”referred to a day, but not day and a night and so did not represent 24 hours.
Not trusting my memory I took the liberty of checking Hebrew.org and found the following:

The Hebrew word יום (yom, Strong's #3117) means a "day," but not specifically a twenty-four hour period, but instead more generically like in "a day that something occurs." An example would be "a day of the month" (Genesis 8:4), "in that day Yahweh made a covenant" (Genesis 15:18) and "until the day" (Genesis 19:37). This word can also refer to the light part of the day in contrast to night (see Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 13:21), but the related word יומם (yomam, Strong's #3119) specifically means "daytime" as in Job 5:14. This word can be used for a time, age or season, but that is only when this word is in the plural form, which is ימים (yamim), and in my opinion should simply be translated as "days" and not time, age or season, as this can lead to incorrect interpretations of the text.

I don’t except this information to be definitive but offer it only for consideration

God Bless

Yom is defined in its first occurrence in Scripture...

And God called the light Day (yom), and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day(yom).
(Gen 1:5)

 

[Siloam]

Yom is defined in its first occurrence in Scripture...

And God called the light Day (yom), and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day(yom).
(Gen 1:5)

First occurrence is not really a definition rule. It's just a statistical observation by those that wish their presumption to be accepted. Besides, it really gets nowhere in this case. If one was to take the literal words to the last degree, Gen 1:5 calls yom nighttime (evening + morning leaves out the time the sun is up).

And, we speak of the beginning of ages as the dawn of such as well as the end of ages with the sunset of that age. None of this is beyond Biblical usage in other cases.

 

[crossnote]

First occurrence is not really a definition rule. It's just a statistical observation by those that wish their presumption to be accepted. Besides, it really gets nowhere in this case. If one was to take the literal words to the last degree, Gen 1:5 calls yom nighttime (evening + morning leaves out the time the sun is up).

And, we speak of the beginning of ages as the dawn of such as well as the end of ages with the sunset of that age. None of this is beyond Biblical usage in other cases.

In hermeneutics, there is what is called the Law of First Occurrence, which establishes a strong precedent for following occurrences.

Here is John Gill on the matter of ‘leaving out the time the sun is up’…

and the evening and the morning were the first day: the evening, the first part of the night, or darkness, put for the whole night, which might be about the space of twelve hours; and the morning, which was the first part of the day, or light, put also for the whole, which made the same space, and both together one natural day, consisting of twenty four hours; what Daniel calls an "evening morning", Dan 8:26 and the apostle νυχθημερον, a "night day", 2Co 11:25. Thales being asked which was first made, the night or the day, answered, the night was before one day (m). The Jews begin their day from the preceding evening; so many other nations: the Athenians used to reckon their day from sun setting to sun setting.

 

[Siloam]

In hermeneutics, there is what is called the Law of First Occurrence, which establishes a strong precedent for following occurrences.

Here is John Gill on the matter of ‘leaving out the time the sun is up’…

and the evening and the morning were the first day: the evening, the first part of the night, or darkness, put for the whole night, which might be about the space of twelve hours; and the morning, which was the first part of the day, or light, put also for the whole, which made the same space, and both together one natural day, consisting of twenty four hours; what Daniel calls an "evening morning", Dan 8:26 and the apostle νυχθημερον, a "night day", 2Co 11:25. Thales being asked which was first made, the night or the day, answered, the night was before one day (m). The Jews begin their day from the preceding evening; so many other nations: the Athenians used to reckon their day from sun setting to sun setting.

I can remember discussing hermeneutics with a very conservative pastor (and friend) about 20 years ago. There were things that made sense like establishing point of view, analyzing relationship with what immediately precedes and follows and expanding thru the scriptures. All of these seem to be good rules of thumb and provides some methodology. But in my view (being, I guess, contrarian with respect to these subjects) too much reliance is made on what prior theologians and teachers have said. Its not that they are not to be respected, but much in the world of science involves incorporating new evidence into per-existing theories, and taking a close critical look in areas that do not seem to fit.

Now, many here are firm that the meaning of the Bible can only be understood in terms of the Bible itself by itself. It is my (heretical?) view that Special revelation (The Scriptures) and General Revelation (nature of God revealed in His creation) work together, each with revelation realm having areas of special clarity and areas where our understanding is increased by looking from the 'other' standpoint.

The Scriptures are about God's dealing with man and what that means for us. Who God is is summarized in His love, including love expressed in His law. The Cosmos (Creation) is about the nature of God Himself, and our part is just a small part of that.

Neither is greater. Each is God's word to us. Note that the cosmos was spoken into being and is thus ALSO God's word.

 

[crossnote]

I can remember discussing hermeneutics with a very conservative pastor (and friend) about 20 years ago. There were things that made sense like establishing point of view, analyzing relationship with what immediately precedes and follows and expanding thru the scriptures. All of these seem to be good rules of thumb and provides some methodology. But in my view (being, I guess, contrarian with respect to these subjects) too much reliance is made on what prior theologians and teachers have said. Its not that they are not to be respected, but much in the world of science involves incorporating new evidence into per-existing theories, and taking a close critical look in areas that do not seem to fit.

Thus Sola Scriptura, and when it comes to science, I guess I'll take what God says over what men observe. Heb 11:3

Now, many here are firm that the meaning of the Bible can only be understood in terms of the Bible itself by itself. It is my (heretical?) view that Special revelation (The Scriptures) and General Revelation (nature of God revealed in His creation) work together, each with revelation realm having areas of special clarity and areas where our understanding is increased by looking from the 'other' standpoint.

The Scriptures are about God's dealing with man and what that means for us. Who God is is summarized in His love, including love expressed in His law. The Cosmos (Creation) is about the nature of God Himself, and our part is just a small part of that.

Yes, since God is the Creator and Author of both (general and special revelation) and the are no contraries with God, they should be in agreement.

Neither is greater. Each is God's word to us. Note that the cosmos was spoken into being and is thus ALSO God's word.

umm. Remember this fallen creation has a shelf life, God's word is eternal as in...

Isaiah 40:8 (KJV) The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I can remember discussing hermeneutics with a very conservative pastor (and friend) about 20 years ago. There were things that made sense like establishing point of view, analyzing relationship with what immediately precedes and follows and expanding thru the scriptures. All of these seem to be good rules of thumb and provides some methodology. But in my view (being, I guess, contrarian with respect to these subjects) too much reliance is made on what prior theologians and teachers have said. Its not that they are not to be respected, but much in the world of science involves incorporating new evidence into per-existing theories, and taking a close critical look in areas that do not seem to fit.

Now, many here are firm that the meaning of the Bible can only be understood in terms of the Bible itself by itself. It is my (heretical?) view that Special revelation (The Scriptures) and General Revelation (nature of God revealed in His creation) work together, each with revelation realm having areas of special clarity and areas where our understanding is increased by looking from the 'other' standpoint.

The Scriptures are about God's dealing with man and what that means for us. Who God is is summarized in His love, including love expressed in His law. The Cosmos (Creation) is about the nature of God Himself, and our part is just a small part of that.

Neither is greater. Each is God's word to us. Note that the cosmos was spoken into being and is thus ALSO God's word.

The problem though is that there is really no direct evidence to support Darwinism evolution at all. except as a means and a way to have Gid taking out of the picture as the Creator, and to have man king not seen as being anymore a special creation of God, but just another animal in the evolutionary process!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Thus Sola Scriptura, and when it comes to science, I guess I'll take what God says over what men observe. Heb 11:3





Yes, since God is the Creator and Author of both (general and special revelation) and the are no contraries with God, they should be in agreement.


umm. Remember this fallen creation has a shelf life, God's word is eternal as in...

Isaiah 40:8 (KJV) The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Still seems that when Darwinism and bible try to get put together, that so called scientist seems to always trump the bible account!

 

[crossnote]

Still seems that when Darwinism and bible try to get put together, that so called scientist seems to always trump the bible account!

Guess which side ends up compromising in the attempted blend.

 

[Siloam]

So, I have engaged in the discussion concerning the meaning of day, etc. While I do not expect that my views changed anyone's mind, I hope that we can see that discussion can include dissenting views,

I would now like to ask the Young Earth believers, particularly those who say that truly accurate investigation would confirm a young cosmos to address the question of how we can see stars farther away than light could travel in so short a cosmic age?

This dhould not be so obscure a question that it should take the Young Earth believers by supprise. Over the years, I have listened for an answer to this question and have yet to hear a young earth explanation consistent with observed facts.

Some say that the speed of light started out instantaneous, and has been slowing down. They often point to historical attempts to measure teh speed of light and assumeing that one cherry picks which attempts, the measured speed has been increasing.

But, ny observing the light cone emenating from novas, we can observe and measure the speed that light was in that location when the nova occurred. A nova observed in Andromeda will emenate light at the same as the current speed of light here, Since Andromeda is a little over 2.5 million light years away, is is hard not to come to the conclusion that light speed is pretty constant and that light from Andeomeda had to travel 2.5 million years to get here.

Some also say that God wanted us to see His universe so created all the photons between the stars and us from the beginning.

Besdes being a huge jump beyond his evidence, this has real issues from a Christian philosophy point of view since those light streams show many events, some cataclismic kije the novas mentioned above that would never have happened.

Appearantly while the heavans declare His Glory, as the psalm says. a Christian must not heed its meddage.

 

[Siloam]

My intention in the above post was to solicit views contrary to my own (not play 'stump the opposition')

As I have said elsewhere, I gravitate to theologicaly traditional churches where with the glaring exception of the age of creation, I am in agreement.

So, I am continually on the 'opposite' side of this issue from prople I greatly expect and with whom I fellowship.

I really would like better insight into thinkig around such questions as I posed above.

If you think I am too dismissive in rejecting the ideas of speed of light slowing, or that the light between the stars and Earth were created with the srars, we can discuss those

 

[Eternally Gratefull]

So, I have engaged in the discussion concerning the meaning of day, etc. While I do not expect that my views changed anyone's mind, I hope that we can see that discussion can include dissenting views,

I would now like to ask the Young Earth believers, particularly those who say that truly accurate investigation would confirm a young cosmos to address the question of how we can see stars farther away than light could travel in so short a cosmic age?

I would ask this question, If God (as he stated he did) Created the heavens and the earth and if God (as he stated) created the stars as he says he did “Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so

and if he created this earth for his creation (mankind) as he said he did

does God have the ability to create these lights, and the power to have their light shown on earth the day they were created? (Evening and the morning were the 4th day)

or Is God forced to wait years and years for these lights to show up on earth so that he can continue his creation.?

This dhould not be so obscure a question that it should take the Young Earth believers by supprise. Over the years, I have listened for an answer to this question and have yet to hear a young earth explanation consistent with observed facts.

Why do you need to see observed facts? Has God not performed miracles before? Look at the human Body. The more we learn, the more complex we see it to be. Science says it occured over billions of years of evolution to come to its state it has been in the last 6 - 10,000 years. The Bible says he created Adam. Then he took a rib from adam and created Eve. If God cam create the human body in a miraculous way. Can he not create the heavenly bodies in the same way to support the created man he created?

I used to be Old Earth, I used to ask the same questions you ask. But I started to study other things and listen to what others were saying, and was convinced I need to look at God in faith. And know we can not answer every question. All we can do is look at what we can see and make a decision.

Some say that the speed of light started out instantaneous, and has been slowing down. They often point to historical attempts to measure teh speed of light and assumeing that one cherry picks which attempts, the measured speed has been increasing.

But, ny observing the light cone emenating from novas, we can observe and measure the speed that light was in that location when the nova occurred. A nova observed in Andromeda will emenate light at the same as the current speed of light here, Since Andromeda is a little over 2.5 million light years away, is is hard not to come to the conclusion that light speed is pretty constant and that light from Andeomeda had to travel 2.5 million years to get here.

Some also say that God wanted us to see His universe so created all the photons between the stars and us from the beginning.

Besdes being a huge jump beyond his evidence, this has real issues from a Christian philosophy point of view since those light streams show many events, some cataclismic kije the novas mentioned above that would never have happened.

Appearantly while the heavans declare His Glory, as the psalm says. a Christian must not heed its meddage.

To me all these people are making an excuse, trying to make the Bible fit science. Instead of letting the word speak for itself.

The heavens declare his glory. Amen. Where does he get more glory? In creating the whole universe and setting it in place in 6 days and resting on the 7th. Or taking billions of years to allow creation to evolve each point to where he needs it to be so he can set up the next state in creation.

Old earth theologians state God took billions of years for the creation to evolve to its finished state so he could then put man in place to rule over it.

Young earth states God created the universe in an “aged state” so that it could do what God designed it to do when he created it.

evening and the morning were the “#” day

God told Israel. As I rested on the 7 day of creation, so shall you rest on the 7th day all the days of your lives.

You can mean different things. Old earth is correct here. Evening and Morning and the sabbath day are two of the most compelling witnesses that caused me to change my view to Young Earth. There are many many more however. That support this change.

 

[Siloam]

I would ask this question, If God (as he stated he did) Created the heavens and the earth and if God (as he stated) created the stars as he says he did “Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so

and if he created this earth for his creation (mankind) as he said he did

does God have the ability to create these lights, and the power to have their light shown on earth the day they were created? (Evening and the morning were the 4th day)

or Is God forced to wait years and years for these lights to show up on earth so that he can continue his creation.?

It is not a matter of what God could do, but what He did and the record He leaves in creation. A great thing about nature as an expression of God's divine nature is that it can be profitably studied and by learning the nature of nature we learn the nature of Him. One thing we learn is that while God is all powerful and 'could' do anything as He wishes, He is not arbitrary. He does not violate the expression of His nature by violating it. Thus if He shows us His emmensity by the emmensity of creation being so large, and if He has set the speed by which light conveys that to us, we should learn from that.

Miracles are not God working apart or against natural laws (His nature). His world is not a majician's show. Miracles are God showing His mastery of them.

God's word uses nature to tell us about Him. In Romans, Paul decries the fact that while we have seen God's power in nature, we have not learned from that, which is the difference between passively seeing, and thoughtfully observing.

Our grasp of both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (The Bible) are both limited. Our limitation is the source of appearant disagreement between them.

But if they can be brought more into alignment by understandind 'yom' in Genesis as meaning an age or era, and that evening and morning refers the change in era, it seems to me that this may be a beginning of a better understanding both of creation and of creator.

But that is not the end of the matter, only a step. Much more prayerful observation and applicaion can increase the clarity of our view.
It may be that after ore observation and study that old earth creation will have to be abandoned. I think this is highly unlikely, but if it is so, and is done by a deeper understandinng of the physical record, then our understanding of Him will be increased by incdreased knowledge, not by rushing to a conclusion.

 

[Dave F.]

This debate began long before Darwin. One question came up, "How do you have a morning and an evening without the sun?" The idea of age or epoch vs young earth will only be settled when we get to heaven.

 

[Eternally Gratefull]

It is not a matter of what God could do, but what He did and the record He leaves in creation. A great thing about nature as an expression of God's divine nature is that it can be profitably studied and by learning the nature of nature we learn the nature of Him. One thing we learn is that while God is all powerful and 'could' do anything as He wishes, He is not arbitrary. He does not violate the expression of His nature by violating it. Thus if He shows us His emmensity by the emmensity of creation being so large, and if He has set the speed by which light conveys that to us, we should learn from that.

Miracles are not God working apart or against natural laws (His nature). His world is not a majician's show. Miracles are God showing His mastery of them.

God's word uses nature to tell us about Him. In Romans, Paul decries the fact that while we have seen God's power in nature, we have not learned from that, which is the difference between passively seeing, and thoughtfully observing.

Our grasp of both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (The Bible) are both limited. Our limitation is the source of appearant disagreement between them.

But if they can be brought more into alignment by understandind 'yom' in Genesis as meaning an age or era, and that evening and morning refers the change in era, it seems to me that this may be a beginning of a better understanding both of creation and of creator.

But that is not the end of the matter, only a step. Much more prayerful observation and applicaion can increase the clarity of our view.
It may be that after ore observation and study that old earth creation will have to be abandoned. I think this is highly unlikely, but if it is so, and is done by a deeper understandinng of the physical record, then our understanding of Him will be increased by incdreased knowledge, not by rushing to a conclusion.

I am sorry Brother, I can not agree. When God wrote the heavens declare his glory. No one knew about light years or how long it would take for the light to get there. So how long it took the light to get from a star to earth for us to see the light had no bearing on Gods word, or how it declares his glory.

As for miracles. When Jesus made the blind man see, He went against nature When he rose Lazarus from he dead. He went against nature. When he cause the Earth to stop rotating so they could have one more hour of sunlight, that was against nature. When he turned the water to blood. That was against nature. When he spoke. And that which was nothing became the heavens and the earth and all that was in it. that was against nature. I can go on and on and on. And it is why most people reject the creation record. Because it goes against nature.

as for Yom and era. What basis do we use to say and evening and morning are the begining of an era. And what purpose does that bible say we had a required era to be completed between each day? Again, Jesus said he rested on the 7th, and told isreal as he rested on day 7, so should they rest on day 7. I six days God worked, and rested on the seventh, in the same notion, they should work for 6 dayes and rest on the 7th.

That is more than enough proof from Gods own words to see each day in genesis as a day, not an era.

I used to be an old earth GAP believer, I was that way because as a teenage, it answered a lot of questions I had. About ten years ago. I started to study the flood. It not only answered the questions I had in a more precise way. it changed my view, and is the reason I became a young earth creationist.

 

[Eternally Gratefull]

This debate began long before Darwin. One question came up, "How do you have a morning and an evening without the sun?" The idea of age or epoch vs young earth will only be settled when we get to heaven.

In order to answer this, we have to determine what light was created on day 1. When he created the light and darkness.

Gen 1:
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it wasgood; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

we have day and night.

light and dark

all equal 1 day. (1 earth day or one earth age?)

the question is, what was th e light that made the day with no sun.

As to the answer of this question. i agree, it will be answered in heaven

as for how long the day is, I agree, the final answer will be in heaven, But I think it is easy to rule out one of the two by looking at the day vs night and what Jesus said to isreal concerning the 6 days of work and 1 day of rest.