Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .0    
    
    
                     In Genesis, the word used for day is the word for a 24
    hour day.  And yet I lean toward the "long" day theory.  I think I
    could argue both sides of this question.
    
    
    Dave

    DR

I liked the explanation entered about a year ago in CHRISTIAN which,
after an exhaustive look at the Hebrew, postulated that the time period
is, most likely, indeterminate (i.e. long).  Since this is (according to that 
work) a very reasonable (if not most reasonable) interpretation of Genesis 1
and since it tends to fit the scientific facts which we have, this is
the theory I currently accept.

Collis

    Seriously, Genesis describes things that in my view happened (happen,
    will happen) "out of time".  Thus, any discussion of length of day is
    not meaningful.
    
    DR

    
                Interesting....a good friend of mine is a Greek scholor, he
    even reads from a copy of the original, and he was telling me that when
    Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days that the literatal
    interpretation might not be correct.  The "old" languages were loaded
    with "double meaning" words.  40 days=a long time.  
    
    
    Dave

    This is a very old argument.  I'm surprised that people still talk
    about it.  From what I've heard and read the Hebrew word for day can be
    translated as a 24 hour day or an era/eon or long period of time. I
    tend to lean toward the long day interpretation because in the time of
    Genesis the earth wasn't even created yet and the length of the day is
    defined by the rotation of the earth.  So a 24 hour day couldnt have
    existed.  Also it is consistent with all the scientific facts that are
    known today.

    Or maybe out of time?
    
    DR

    RE: Day = 24 hours or long time (perhaps, 1000 years)
    
    I agree with Bonnie in .4 and Mr. Lam in .6
    
    Besides the concept of Day as a "measure of time" long or short, Day
    also means "season of" or "period of", and refers to "coming forth", as
    in "every dog has its DAY", a season or period when something good
    comes forth in its life...this does not refer to a "measure of time" as
    in 24 hour day, nor a "long" day as in 1,000 years, but again, it means
    a "season" or "period of" coming forth of goodness..."seen the light of
    day" is also a concept of this sort of Day.
    
    So, in Genesis each creation day refers to the season or period of
    coming forth by day (to light, or manifestation) of those particular
    things associated with that day.  From 1 to 6, each "Day" may very well
    have been of different lengths of time.
    
    I'm concerned about the phrase "out of time" however, it tends to
    suggest "not within time".  Every thing happens "IN TIME", there is
    nothing "out of time", not even God...you might argue God created time,
    but didn't it take time to make time!  Everything happens "IN TIME",
    and I'm speaking of "measureable time".
    
    Playtoe

    um, Playtoe....
    
    ::reinke signed 'DR' is my husband Don
    
    
    BJ

I hold with a mythological understanding of Genesis, which would not disagree 
with the "long day" or "time is irrelevant" viewpoint.

Peace,

Jim

p.s.

A "myth" is "a traditional story presenting supernatural beings, ancestors, or 
heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world, 
according to the _America Heritage Dictionary_.  Primitive meaning "pertaining 
to early stages of development".

A myth is not a fable, make-believe, or "just a story".  It is a very powerful 
way to explore and explain some of the very deep questions about "life, the 
universe and everything" .-)

Calling it a myth is not calling it wrong or a lie.  It helps me to understand 
in what way it is true.

    	
    	I don't understand the problem of 'day' being 24hrs.  Everyone
    seems to feel more comfortable with their perception fitting science,
    when science after all is just the observation of what is perceived.
    
    	By saying that these 'days' must be longer then 24hrs (which is 'to
    me' irrelavent anyway) are we saying that God is not able to create the
    world in 144hrs??
    
    	_ed-

    God does what He/She will, with no permission from us or the Bible.
    
    DR

re: Note 250.11 by _ed- "MARANATHA!" 
    	
>    	By saying that these 'days' must be longer then 24hrs (which is 'to
>    me' irrelavent anyway) are we saying that God is not able to create the
>    world in 144hrs??
    
Shouldn't that be 168 hours?  .-)  God's day of rest was an integral part of 
the act of creation, however one times it.

Peace,

Jim

Re: .11 Ed

>    	By saying that these 'days' must be longer then 24hrs (which is 'to
>    me' irrelavent anyway) are we saying that God is not able to create the
>    world in 144hrs??
    
No, they're saying that they've preceived that he didn't.

				-- Bob

I certainly believe that God could have created what He did in 144 (or 168)
hours.  In fact, this may be just what happened.  There is absolutely
no way for us to go back in time to know.  We have to rely on what
God Himself says about this.

Since the revelation we have now is ambiguous (in my opinion), I prefer
the theory that conforms more closely to the external evidence we have
which supports a very long creation period.

Collis

re: Note 250.15 by Collis 

> There is absolutely no way for us to go back in time to know.  

Well, actually, we can *observe* back in time, via astronomy, and that is a 
powerful tool.  Of course there is a limit.  Up until about 300,000 years 
after the "big bang", the universe was opaque and remains unobservable by any 
known means.

Of course thats just a hypothesis... .-)

Peace,

Jim

    In the first chapter of Genesis, each one of the six creative days is
    completed with God seeing each as "good" or "very good".  By God's
    standards, "good" or "very good" equals perfection.  The seventh day is
    established at Genesis 2:2, but nowhere is it described as being "good"
    or "very good".  That's because the seventh day of creation has not
    ended.  Right at the start of the seventh creative day, mankind became
    imperfect, and in God's eyes couldn't be called "good" or "very good". 
    Until mankind is restored to perfection, and the earth is turned into
    the paradise it was supposed to be, then the seventh day has not
    reached it's conclusion.  Therefore, the creative days are not literal
    24 hour days.  They are unspecified periods of time, each one probably
    milleniums in duration.  Archeological evidence supports this.
    
    Steve

    What archeological evidence supports the fall or the garden?  I would
    truly like to visit the site of the garden, if indeed it is on this
    planet.  
    
    DR
    
    
    

    Don
    
    it was more the early communities in Europe that supports the legend
    of the Garden. There was no war there, no poverty. They had no
    hunger, no class stratification. They had weaving and pottery
    and indoor plumbing. (read the book :-) , hugs)
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie, 

That sounds like a typical day of PBS viewing... lessee, we have Bob 
Thompson tending the Victory Garden, Bill Moyers and MacNeil & Lehrer 
reporting on all the war and poverty elsewhere in the world, a variety 
of arts and craft educational series, and Norm Abrams remodelling the 
indoor plumbing!

.-)

Jim (the parallels were simply too great to ignore.)

    re:  .19
    
    No hunger?  No Class Stratification?  Weaving?  Indoor Plumbing?  
    
    I'll read the book, but it does sound a bit hard to believe.
    
    DR

    re:  .18
    
    All I meant was that archeological evidence supports the fact that each
    creative day was much longer than 24 hours.
    
    Steve
    

This seems to be the best topic to enter this...

There's an article in the December 1993 _Scientific American_ which touches 
upon some theological boundaries.  The abstract from the table of contents 
follows:

MHC Polymorphism and Human Origins

Jan Klein, Naoyuki Takahata and Francisco J. Ayala

Analysis of the major histocompatibility complex locus, which governs the 
recognition of self bt the immune system, reveals two profound surprises 
concerning the evolution of humans:  the immune system is much older than 
the species it protects, and the ancestral population must have been large, 
not small.  There were many Adams and Eves.