Did you perhaps mean “scientific creationist challenges with naturalistic science”?? (maybe vice versa?)
I was about to attempt your question from the science side, but on a second read I’m not sure that was that you were asking.
Based upon the Hebrew text I believe it regional
I think it’s interesting how the discussion quietly transitions from waters being gathered, to plate tectonics and mountains rising. Did you see that?
2 Likes
Yes, and that’s why I asked for clarification. Answering the wrong question is how a lot of arguments start.
2 Likes
That might have been a better wording. The point being that the take on this model (the purpose of the thread) is to avoid conflicts between scriptural interpretation and naturalistic science.
But as I read it, there was still belief in 24 hour days, and something physical going on.
As it’s read in scripture, the end of day 2 (and beginning of day 3) had the world covered with water. By the end of day 3, continents with plants.
I really couldn’t see how there could be something “physical” going on on day 3 that didn’t produce a conflict with naturalistic scientific narratives.
Ok. Given that, I’m assuming you mean some small area of the world had land appearing? Like an island or peninsula perhaps? But the rest of the world, similar to what we see today? You didn’t give a lot of detail, so I’m trying to fill in a bit. I don’t want to misrepresent you here.
1 Like
When I say the Genesis creation account is regional, I’m talking about the language, not necessarily the scope of the event. The Hebrew word 'eretz never means “planet Earth” in the modern sense. It means land, territory, region, or ground. That’s how Moses uses it everywhere else, the land of Egypt, the land of Canaan, the land Israel will inherit. So when Genesis 1 says the 'eretz was covered with water, it is describing the condition of a land region, not making a geological claim about the entire globe being submerged.
This solves the Day 3 issue cleanly. The text does not require global tectonic uplift or the formation of continents in 24 hours. It only requires that in the region God was preparing, dry land appeared and vegetation grew. That avoids any conflict with naturalistic geology because the text isn’t describing global geophysics; it’s describing God preparing a specific land area for human habitation.
And to be clear, saying the language is regional does not mean the event couldn’t have been global. The Israelites had no concept of a spherical planet, global continents, or worldwide hydrology. They had no “global context” at all. So God would naturally communicate in terms they understood — 'eretz as land/region, shamayim as sky/heavens, yamim as waters. That’s the only semantic framework available to them. God is not going to speak to them in categories they have no reference point for.
So the Hebrew wording is regional because that’s how ancient Near Eastern people talked about land. But that does not restrict the event itself to being small or local. The text is simply using the vocabulary and conceptual world of its original audience. Regional language ≠ regional event. It just means the description is framed in the only way the audience could meaningfully grasp.
1 Like
I hadn’t gotten the impression that the OP is supporting scientific concordism. Did he note that somewhere? Just curious where that conclusion came from. Thanks.