-
†. Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good
God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good.
In point of fact, darkness always represents bad things in the Bible; while
light always represents good things. It's been an axiom from the very
beginning.
†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God
called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of
deducing the correct chronology of Easter week.
Anyplace there's light, there is no true darkness because light always dispels
darkness. However, darkness is powerless to dispel light. In other words;
science and industry have given the world a flashlight; but they have yet to
give the world a flashdark. So then, light is the superior of the two and rules
the dark; for example:
"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend
it." (John 1:5)
The koiné Greek word for "comprehend" is katalambano (kat-al-am-ban'-o)
which basically means to take, seize, or possess eagerly. At 1Thess 5:4 it's
translated overtake (as a thief, in a sudden and/or unexpected way). At
Mark 9:18 it's translated seizure (as in demon possession). The idea is,
darkness is powerless to stop light from dominating it. Even a little kid with
a candle can conquer darkness; because light, even the light from a candle,
is impervious to darkness, and darkness has no way to fight it off and/or
beat it back. However, where there is no light, then darkness definitely has
the advantage.
†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.
Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.
In other words: morning represents the hours of the day between sunup and
high noon, while evening represents the hours of the day between high noon
and sunset.
NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as
daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea
that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That
makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and
afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead
during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.
Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to
Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day;
which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.
Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.
That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".
The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another;
and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light
only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words;
none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very
significant.
NOTE: Some Bible students regard science an enemy of Genesis; but science
and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and religion assist
each other. Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than
enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words;
science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that
religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer.
If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend watching History
Channel's two-season series titled: "How The Earth Was Made". The earth's
geological past, and its present, are just astounding. The series takes some
liberties here and there-- especially in its theories about the origin of the
blue planet's huge volume of water --but by and large, it's very informative;
and I believe quite useful to students of Genesis.
NOTE: Right about here I should give honorable mention to the process of
accretion. There was yet a solar system, and thus there was not yet an
enormous, powerful source of gravity in Earth's neighborhood; viz: the
Earth was not yet established in an orbit; so it was adrift and vulnerable to
random bombardment by objects flying around loose in the cosmos.
Scientists feel that quite a bit of Earth's mass is due to sustaining those
impacts.
Those impacts would generate a tremendous amount of heat and thus
prevent the formation of organic molecules until the Earth cooled down quite
a bit. Well; if accretion and cooling really did happen, then they inserted a
pretty big time lapse between Gen 1:5 and the next few verses.
Cont.
/
†. Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good
God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good.
In point of fact, darkness always represents bad things in the Bible; while
light always represents good things. It's been an axiom from the very
beginning.
†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God
called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of
deducing the correct chronology of Easter week.
Anyplace there's light, there is no true darkness because light always dispels
darkness. However, darkness is powerless to dispel light. In other words;
science and industry have given the world a flashlight; but they have yet to
give the world a flashdark. So then, light is the superior of the two and rules
the dark; for example:
"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend
it." (John 1:5)
The koiné Greek word for "comprehend" is katalambano (kat-al-am-ban'-o)
which basically means to take, seize, or possess eagerly. At 1Thess 5:4 it's
translated overtake (as a thief, in a sudden and/or unexpected way). At
Mark 9:18 it's translated seizure (as in demon possession). The idea is,
darkness is powerless to stop light from dominating it. Even a little kid with
a candle can conquer darkness; because light, even the light from a candle,
is impervious to darkness, and darkness has no way to fight it off and/or
beat it back. However, where there is no light, then darkness definitely has
the advantage.
†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.
Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.
In other words: morning represents the hours of the day between sunup and
high noon, while evening represents the hours of the day between high noon
and sunset.
NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as
daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea
that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That
makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and
afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead
during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.
Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to
Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day;
which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.
Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.
That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".
The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another;
and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light
only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words;
none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very
significant.
NOTE: Some Bible students regard science an enemy of Genesis; but science
and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and religion assist
each other. Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than
enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words;
science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that
religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer.
If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend watching History
Channel's two-season series titled: "How The Earth Was Made". The earth's
geological past, and its present, are just astounding. The series takes some
liberties here and there-- especially in its theories about the origin of the
blue planet's huge volume of water --but by and large, it's very informative;
and I believe quite useful to students of Genesis.
NOTE: Right about here I should give honorable mention to the process of
accretion. There was yet a solar system, and thus there was not yet an
enormous, powerful source of gravity in Earth's neighborhood; viz: the
Earth was not yet established in an orbit; so it was adrift and vulnerable to
random bombardment by objects flying around loose in the cosmos.
Scientists feel that quite a bit of Earth's mass is due to sustaining those
impacts.
Those impacts would generate a tremendous amount of heat and thus
prevent the formation of organic molecules until the Earth cooled down quite
a bit. Well; if accretion and cooling really did happen, then they inserted a
pretty big time lapse between Gen 1:5 and the next few verses.
Cont.
/
