Comments on: Affirming 6x24-hour days, using

Conversation Side Conversation
41

If a president is inaugurated, nothing biological happens. The person doesn’t turn into Superman or the incredible hulk. They’re still biologically the same as they were before the inauguration. But that doesn’t mean that the event therefore becomes an allegory that never happened.

In the same way, Genesis describes God inaugurating His ordered world as His temple. That’s a real act or event (well, if you’re Christian and believe in God at least), it’s just described in functional or theological terms rather than biological or scientific ones.

The same pattern shows up elsewhere in Scripture. You see it in Ezekiel, and you see it very clearly with Solomon’s temple.

Solomon’s temple was physically constructed, and then Scripture describes a seven‑day inauguration that follows. After that seven‑day ceremony, God “rests”, just like on the 7th day, meaning He takes up residence and begins ruling from His throne. That’s not allegory. It’s a real event described in functional, liturgical, theological terms rather than biological or scientific ones.

I mean, it’s laid out in several places throughout scripture. Here are a few examples:

Isaiah 66:1–2 speaks of heaven as God’s throne and the earth as His footstool, and then asks, “Where is the house/temple you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?” God’s “resting place” is a temple concept, the place where He rules. Consider the 7th day where God rests in Genesis.

Psalm 132 uses the same language. It calls the temple God’s dwelling place and His footstool, and then says, “Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place.” Later it adds, “This is my resting place forever; here I will sit enthroned.” Again, “rest” is enthronement language. He’s taking up the throne to rule.

Ezekiel 43 describes the glory of the Lord entering the temple and God saying, “This is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever.” That’s temple‑inauguration language.

2 Chronicles 6–7 shows the same pattern. Solomon prays, “Arise, Lord God, to Your resting place,” and then the glory of the Lord fills the temple. The text describes a seven‑day dedication festival, a full inauguration ceremony. God takes takes up the throne.

So, the Bible is filled with passages describing God “resting” in His temple, taking His throne, and ruling from His cosmic dwelling.

Temple inauguration is a real, concrete event in Scripture, and historically in the ancient near east it’s something that unfolded in 7-days, including elsewhere in the Bible, but here in Genesis it’s described in functional and theological terms, not material ones.

42

I am unable to understand your reasoning here. God appoints the sun to rule the day, but nothing about it actually changes? Then what was it doing before it ruled the day? And one might point out that there is no actual ruling going on. The sun is not a king; it’s not even a person, because such a person would be a god, and the point is that the sun is an object created by God to serve a purpose, with no volition or authority. “Rule” is just a way of saying that the sun is the bright light present in the day time. So before that it wasn’t a bright light present in the day time?

But Genesis is operating in the framework of pot-making, as happens many times, notably Adam made from the dust of the ground. Nothing scientific about it. Are you not again confusing the point of the story with the story itself?

He’s asking for God to produce a change in his mental makeup. That’s like making a pot from clay, so we’re back to what I’m talking about.

Yes, and again I claim that what it refers to should be apparent from context, notably the noun that is its object. One creates a committee by labeling it. But one doesn’t create a pot by labeling it. And the sun is of the latter sort, not the former.

But what would that actually mean? What actually happens to the sun? Something has to happen, because the sun isn’t like a committee that can just be assigned.

I’d say that the range is constrained in any particular instance by context and the word is not able to assume any of its meanings freely in any given case. You know that when David asks for a new heart he doesn’t mean a literal new organ; you have said so yourself, and thus you apply the contextual criterion. Now apply that to Genesis.

Of course not. He clearly makes them that way from the first. This is not an assignment of roles to previously created beings, as you have claimed. It’s a description of what he first creates them to be.

They also say how they were made, generally fashioned from clay or something similar. Nevertheless, being male or female is not a mere instruction or assignment. It’s a physical fact. The story clearly shows humans being created, male and female and in God’s image, on Day 6. God’s image may be the point of the story, but it’s not the story itself.

Are you saying that many Hebrew scholars say that, in the story, nothing was actually created on any of the days of creation?

True enough, but the creation of the sun is not like the inauguration of a president. I can tell you what happens when a present is inaugurated, but what happens when a sun is assigned (?) a role?

In what way was the world not ordered before this inauguration? What was the sun like before? What was the sea like before it was instructed to bring forth all the swimming animals? What, in effect, changed?

Yes, but what exactly is the real event of creation week (again, according to the text)? Can you not be at all clear or specific?

43

Psalm 51 isn’t describing God manufacturing a new organ or reshaping brain matter. It’s describing a functional and relational transformation, forgiveness, renewal, restored covenant identity. That’s why bara can be used there without implying material creation.

If we can’t get past the fact that Scripture regularly uses bara for non‑material acts, changes in status, role, relationship, or function, then we’re going to keep talking past each other. The Bible simply doesn’t restrict “creation” to physical reshaping of matter, and Psalm 51 is one of the clearest examples of that.

44

No argument there. It’s what we understand the meaning to be from context. I’m just saying that different contexts demand different understandings. And the sun is unlike David’s metaphorical heart.

45

Ok, so what makes you think that the Sun being created to rule the day is different?

**14 **And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, **15 **and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. **16 **God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. **17 **God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, **18 **to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

So God made the greater light to govern the day. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light and to govern the day, and to separate light from darkness.

It sounds like God is assigning functions and roles to me.

“To rule”

“To govern”

“To mark seasons”

“To give light”

This is all functional. It’s not about material origins of the sun. I don’t see anything about accretion of atoms or light photons. These passages are about what the sun does, not about where the sun materially came from.

Sure, God set the sun in the sky. I can set my cheeseburger in the refrigerator, but what does that have to do with material formation or origins?

46

It sounds as if God is telling us what they’re for when he makes them and sets them in place.

Of course not. The Hebrews knew nothing about any of that. This is a strawman objection. The sun is a light embedded in the firmament, and that’s all we need to know about it. But making it is not just assigning it a role, whatever that means to you (and I still don’t know because you haven’t said). Making it is, well, making it, however that was done. Before that day, there was no sun, and then it came into existence and was put into its proper spot. Would you not agree that “rule” and “govern” here are purely metaphorical? Can you in fact clearly describe what you think the story says happened on Day 4? So far you have used terms that don’t describe any actual, physical event. Do you think that the story does not intend any such thing? Please, try to explain clearly.

47

Yes exactly. That’s the primary purpose of the text. It’s about assigning roles “what they’re for”.

That is what it means to “make” the sun. The text tells us.

48

Let the text tell you what it means for God to “make” the sun. Don’t import anything the text doesn’t say.

You already acknowledged what the passage actually gives us: to rule, to govern, to separate, to give light.

Those are roles and functions. They say nothing about mechanisms or material origins.

That’s the point. When God “makes” the sun in Genesis 1, that’s what happens, He assigns its functions within the ordered world.

Just like if I “made” you president. Nothing material happens to your body, but you are made to rule a nation. It’s a real change, but not a material one.

You see the parallel.

49

This is exceedingly frustrating. I still have no idea what you mean by “assigning roles”, and you seem uninterested in clarifying. But I think the text tells us differently.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?? PLEASE!

Yes, but you are consistently ignoring my point that context constrains the meaning. You know that if you make me president, that’s different from if you make me a sandwich. If you make the sun, the range of meaning is of the second type.

50

Here’s another clear example.

Isaiah 54:16

“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc.”

The destroyer is created to wreak havoc. The blacksmith created to forge weapons.

Is that material? No.

Is it functional, a role, a vocation, a purpose? Absolutely.

It’s about status, calling, and function, not God saying, “I need a blacksmith, let me sculpt one out of dirt real quick.”

This is exactly the same pattern we see in Genesis 1.

Just look closely at the sun passage:

to rule

to govern

to give light

to mark seasons

Those are functions, not descriptions of God collecting photons or assembling plasma. The text never talks about the sun’s material origins, only its purpose in the ordered world.

And the same thing is true of the Imago Dei. In the ancient Near East, being “in the image” of a god meant being installed as that god’s representative ruler. It’s a royal function, not a statement about biology or atoms.

So when the Bible uses bara in these contexts, it’s describing real, functional creation, not material construction.

51

A functional assignment means giving something a role, purpose, or identity. It’s like when I “make” someone president, I’m not changing their atoms or biology. I’m assigning them a position, a task, and authority. It’s a real change, but not a material one.