Part of what I find interesting is the notion that "the first day", "the second day" etc could describe a period of time not necessarily confined to 86,400 seconds in the way we currently understand "a day" to mean. Genesis talks of "the evening and the morning", which does suggest that whatever periods of time they were they related to a rotation of the earth. That doesn't necessarily mean a day as we'd currently describe it - if the earth revolved more slowly back then a day could be more or less any length of time.
It also doesn't explicitly state that each day followed the previous day without any spaces. On the first day I disassembled a clock and cleaned it, on the second day I manually cleaned the nooks and crannies with pegwood, and on the third day I reassembled it. It's just that between the second day and the third day was a week waiting for the new mainsprings to arrive from my supplier.
I must admit I'm curious to find out just what it all does mean, even if I don't find out this side of heaven.
To US, the relating in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (sometimes referred to by MODERN folks as "the First Creation Account") sure LOOKS like it's talking about a sequence and 24 hour periods of time. We all wear "glasses".... we all have assumptions, a perspective, a worldview, stuff we hold as true - we ALL do - whether we are aware of it or not. And it's extremely difficult to not impose that upon what we read/hear, what is presented to us - it ALL gets "filtered" through our stuff, our baggage, our glasses. KNOWING that, realizing that, is the first step in limiting the impact of that.... in minimizing the
eisegesis and increasing the
exegesis.
Yes, we note this quite clearly in the "flat, small, square planet" thing..... yup, to modern 21st Century man (who thinks in very distinctive ways, who has a worldview, who has assumptions) those verses SEEM to clearly state that the planet here is small, square and flat. But we are pretty _______ sure that's not the case!
So........ we come to the unavoidable point: Either Scripture is wrong OR we are wrong in our interpretation/spin of Scripture. Some will insist this proves Scripture teaches falsehood (and thus is unreliable). Others will conclude that PEOPLE can be wrong in how we understand Scripture. I fall into the second camp.
It seems to ME that there are TWO different things here - one in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the other in 2:4ff - and while I've seen many attempts to merge the two, I'm not convinced of it. I wonder if the revelation here is affirming God as Creator rather than trying to speak to 21st Century astrophysics and geologists and biologists, in the language and thoughts of 21st. Century Science to explain in scientific terms HOW all came about that "is." I'm aware that "science" as we think of it didn't exist for thousands of years after those two things were first penned...... maybe we have a situation like the "flat, small, square planet" thing: not science at all? Read the next paragraph....
I said I WONDER. I didn't say I KNOW. I think the issue is this: Where 21st century modern man THINKS Scripture is conflicting with what WE currently hold as true..... is this because Scripture is wrong or because WE are wrong in what we impose on it, in our eisegesis? Frankly, it comes down to a
pride vs. humility thing. Simply, I lack the ego to insist that I'M smarter than God.... I'M the ONE who KNOWS what God should have inspired and whether God was wrong or right in how He chose to relate things to all the cultures and ages of humanity.... that I'M the one who knows what is TRUTH and God is wrong if He SEEMS to ME to be saying something at variance with ME. The egoism... the individualism.... that's where the problem likely resides? The assumption that how I'M spinning it is what
ergo is truth, including when MY spin shows God to be wrong.
I didn't say I know. That's not relativism or minimalism, it's humility.
- Josiah
