Old earth creationist idea

[lee_merrill]

Though no doubt someone has thought of this before, I'm wondering if the statements on each day reflect not only what God did on that day, but what became of it. So the events on day 3 describe the creation of vegetation, which results in seed-bearing plants, and trees, and the events on day 5 show fish resulting in birds, and then wild animals resulting in livestock (Gen. 1:26).

If this was meant, it explains various conundrums about trees seeming to be appearing before fish, and so on, kind of along the lines of overlapping days, yet without needing to propose that the days did overlap. Instead, the results continued, and here is what they were and are. Maybe along the lines of God looking to the future on the sixth day:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen 1:28 NIV)

Blessings,
Lee

[Kelp]

I think Glenn Morton's view is similar. He says that the days are "days of proclamation". God declared that such and such would exist on X day, but that doesn't imply that said thing was fully formed and existent by the end of X day.

Seems to me that "and the evening and the morning..." militates such a reading, but I could be wrong.

[lee_merrill]

I think Glenn Morton's view is similar. He says that the days are "days of proclamation". God declared that such and such would exist on X day, but that doesn't imply that said thing was fully formed and existent by the end of X day.

That does seem to be along the same lines.

Seems to me that "and the evening and the morning..." militates such a reading, but I could be wrong.

Well, I'm happy if the first step was done during the specified time frame, during the "day." Morning being a starting point! End the last stage, start the next one.

Blessings,
Lee