Evening and Morning before the sun....

[KBertsche]

The number argument is a good one because the way it is worded it is best understood as literal days. I agree with you that the argument is kind of ad hoc, but I don't see any reason to interpret the evenings and mornings as anything other than literal for each day.

Keep in mind that I personally do not take the YEC viewpoint to be textually true...but since there is no difference between the words used to describe the evenings and mornings both before and after the creation of the sun I am lead to believe that there is no difference.

FYI, Gerald Schroeder takes these words in an interesting way. He points out that in Hebrew "evening" is related to the word for "disorder", and "morning" related to "order". So he takes "there was evening, and there was morning" as "there was disorder, and then there was order".

He is Jewish, but I don't know how orthodox or how well he knows his Hebrew. I don't agree with his view; it seems too mystical and metaphorical. But it is interesting nonetheless.

[Warcraft3]

FYI, Gerald Schroeder takes these words in an interesting way. He points out that in Hebrew "evening" is related to the word for "disorder", and "morning" related to "order". So he takes "there was evening, and there was morning" as "there was disorder, and then there was order".

He is Jewish, but I don't know how orthodox or how well he knows his Hebrew. I don't agree with his view; it seems too mystical and metaphorical. But it is interesting nonetheless.

Never heard that one before.....that is interesting.

I will have to go look that one up.....

Thanks.

[FreezBee]

Never heard that one before.....that is interesting.

I have never heard about it either, so it's really interesting to me too.

I will have to go look that one up.....

How quick can you do it?


- FreezBee

[Warcraft3]

Great topic. Glad to see it being discussed. The subject appears to have troubled Origen, the 3rd century bishop of Alexandria and Church Father, who wrote:

What man of sense will argue with the statement that the first, second and third days, which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars? ... I believe every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense is concealed.

So as you can see, Christians have been vexed by this issue for a long, long time.

Thanks for that rouge06.

[Warcraft3]

I have never heard about it either, so it's really interesting to me too.



How quick can you do it?


- FreezBee

I am going to do it tonight.....

[KBertsche]

FYI, Gerald Schroeder takes these words in an interesting way. He points out that in Hebrew "evening" is related to the word for "disorder", and "morning" related to "order". So he takes "there was evening, and there was morning" as "there was disorder, and then there was order".

He is Jewish, but I don't know how orthodox or how well he knows his Hebrew. I don't agree with his view; it seems too mystical and metaphorical. But it is interesting nonetheless.

FYI, below is an excerpt from his website, http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
He may have descriptions in some of his books, too:

----------

... Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.) So you go to the Dead Sea and say, "I see these orderly salt crystals. You're telling me that G-d's there making each crystal?" No. That's not what I'm saying. But the salt crystals do not arise randomly. They arise because laws of nature that are part of the creation package force salt crystals to form. The laws of nature guide the development of the world. And there is a phenomenal amount of development that's encoded in the Six Days. But it's not included directly in the text. Otherwise you'd have creation every other sentence!

The Torah wants you to be amazed by this flow of order, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

[Warcraft3]

Just bumping this thread so I don't forget to respond...

[FreezBee]

Just bumping this thread so I don't forget to respond...

And what would you respond, if you don't forget?

[supersport]

In response to the OP, this may have something to do with it.....from The Gospel of John:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[Samurai]

The context.

The word "day" is used along with a number (first, second, etc)....the YECs make a good case textually that these evenings and mornings are literal and not figurative.

Of course that actually hurts their viewpoint overall, but they make a good argument against a figurative interpretation of evening and morning.

It hurts their case? How so?

[Samurai]

Just bumping this thread so I don't forget to respond...

You seem to have a history of "forgetting" to respond"... How about addressing my point in another thread you bumped, because you were scared you would forget.

[Faid]

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

I found that extremely interesting, since, in ancient Greek cosmogony (at least a version of it), Erevos (the Dark), springs out of primodial Chaos.

Could be a coincidence, of course. But, if there was some early cultural exchange that resulted in the Eastern story lending elements to the Greek one (or even vice versa), then the connection of "erev" with chaos and disorder might actually be supported.



<edit> It's no coincidence.

[oxmixmudd]

FYI, below is an excerpt from his website, http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
He may have descriptions in some of his books, too:

----------

... Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.) So you go to the Dead Sea and say, "I see these orderly salt crystals. You're telling me that G-d's there making each crystal?" No. That's not what I'm saying. But the salt crystals do not arise randomly. They arise because laws of nature that are part of the creation package force salt crystals to form. The laws of nature guide the development of the world. And there is a phenomenal amount of development that's encoded in the Six Days. But it's not included directly in the text. Otherwise you'd have creation every other sentence!

The Torah wants you to be amazed by this flow of order, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

Don't know why I missed this the first time around, but thanks for the bump so I would notice it.

This makes a lot of sense to me. It does seem silly to just assume the writer didn't know that by putting the creation of the sun on day 4 there wouldn't be questions about what evening/morning was actually referring to in days 1,2,3. So assuming there was a purpose to writing it this way makes a great deal of sense. Also the fact the writer doesn't explain what they were is also telling - they were leaving it purposefully vague.

If one assumes the writer was directly inspired by God, or even having the text dictated by God, the fact this 'ommission' was made makes clear God Himself wants us to notice this and draw a conclusion from it that He has not made clear in the text. Thus, He wants us to look "below the surface" as it where. And indeed, this is precisely what is required to make sense of the text based on what we now know about the history and formation of the Universe and the Earth.

It also means that in deriving a correct understanding to this text, we are essentially forced to ultimately look outside this particular text. As there really isn't anything in the remaining text of scripture that gives us clarity as to what this evening/morning without the sun might be - other than what Kbertse mentions(which is another clue the text is broad in its description). Which points directly to the only true carification of the meaning being found in the creation itself - as that is the only other place (from a Judeo/Christian POV) where there exists a record of what God actually did.

Jim

[Warcraft3]

You seem to have a history of "forgetting" to respond"... How about addressing my point in another thread you bumped, because you were scared you would forget.

"Forgetting to respond"......spare me the drama.....I have a life outside of the internet and I don't spend every moment of my free time on TWEB...I actually spend too much time the way it is on the internet.....

Please don't make comments as if I deliberately "forget" to reply....

What is the other thread you are referring to? I don't know what other thread you are referring to....

[Warcraft3]

It hurts their case? How so?

It hurts their case because then we have a literal evening and a literal morning before there was a literal sun......that seems to cast serious doubt upon the nature of, at the very least, the first 3 days....