Does yom = ordinary day imply a young earth?

By adopting historical timeframes from sources outside the Bible, and re-interpreting the Bible to make them fit.

The eighth century Greek historian Hesiod popularized the idea of the world divided into separate ages of time represented by metals; a golden age, silver age, bronze age, and iron age. [1] A similar concept is found in Daniel 2, though it is restricted to a certain number of empires, rather than the entire world.

During the Greek occupation of Israel after the conquests of Alexander the Great, many Jews became Hellenized and started mixing Greek myth and legend with their interpretation of the Bible. Some of the products of this were the immortal soul, a belief in demons, and the “7,000 year” history of the world.

The earliest Jewish precursor to the 7,000 year plan was the allegorical work of Aristobulus (second century BCE), a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who combined the Greek ideas of the ages of the world with the Jewish idea of the sabbath, to come up a kind of seven-fold plan for the earth.

“Fragment 5 of the work of Aristobulus (ca. middle of 2d century B.C.) explains the sabbath in relationship to cosmic orders, also linking the sabbath to wisdom (Frag. 5.9–10) and the sevenfold structures of all things (Frag. 5.12). This work is an attempt to bring the sabbath into relationship with Hellenistic thought similar to that of Philo.” [2]

This allegorical, non-literal interpretation of Genesis, was combined with other pagan Greek ideas, such as the calculations of the mathematician Pythagoras.

“Fragment 5 provides important evidence for Jewish use of Pythagorean ideas in the second century B.C. Both Aristobulus and Philo (SpecLeg 2.15(59)) seem to presuppose a traditional, allegorical interpretation of the biblical account of creation. This interpretation made use of Pythagorean reflections on the number seven as a prime number.” [3]

We finally see the 7,000 year plan emerging in its complete form in pseudepigraphal works such as the Book(s) of Enoch (a collection of fabricated literature written between 300 BCE and 100 BCE), which claims to be the writings of Enoch the patriarch. Yet even in this work the end of human history arrives in the year 8,000, rather than 7,000. [4]

Around the same time, the Book of Jubilees arrived at an age for the earth, as a byproduct of trying to fit biblical history into another symbolic number scheme. The author of Jubilees believed that God’s plan with creation was ordered according to a cycle of Jubilees; 50 year periods. This author believed that God’s plan involved a certain (unspecified), number of Jubilee periods, each of which was marked by a significant historical event.

The author of Jubilees started with creation, moved forward 50 years, arbitrarily selected a significant historical event as a marker, and then moved on another 50 years. Rinse and repeat, and we have Israel entering Canaan (a key historical event of course), at the fiftieth Jubilee, around 2,450 BCE, by which time the earth is already 2,500 years old. Of course Jubilees doesn’t mention this, because the author isn’t actually interested in the age of the earth at all; the entire aim of this exercise is to fit the history of the world into a pre-determined theologically significant schema.

Despite the popularity of the Book of Enoch, the 7,000 year plan remained only a fringe idea in pre-Christian Jewish literature. Significantly, it is not found in the New Testament at all, absent even from Hebrews (which uses the Sabbath as a major theme but never relates this to a 7,000 year plan), and from Revelation (which makes extensive symbolic use of the number seven but never relates this to a 7,000 year plan).

Its first appearance in the Christian era is in books such as 4 Ezra (written near the end of the first century CE, after the fall of Jerusalem). This book may have introduced the 7,000 year plan to early Christians. The Epistle of Barnabas, another influential work written around the same time, also presented the 7,000 year plan explicitly, based on a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, in which the creation narrative is interpreted as an allegory.

“Observe, children, what “he finished in six days” means. It means this: that in six thousand years the Lord will bring everything to an end, for with him a day signifies a thousand years. And he himself bears me witness when he says, “Behold, the day of the Lord will be as a thousand years.” Therefore, children, in six days—that is, in six thousand years—everything will be brought to an end. “And he rested on the seventh day.” This means: when his Son comes, he will destroy the time of the lawless one and will judge the ungodly and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then he will truly rest on the seventh day.” [5]

However, although many Christian writers believed in a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth following his return, the more specific belief that this would take place after 7,000 years of human history was much less widespread. Irenaeus (at the end of the second century), seems to have been one of the few significant early Christian writers to champion the 7,000 year plan. [6]

The Jewish Mishnah and Talmud provide collections of rabbinical writings and sayings dating from the second to the sixth century, some of which preserve the tradition of the 7,000 year plan, while others give different dates for the return of the messiah and the end of human history. [7] Nevertheless, it appears from this evidence that even among Jews the idea did not start becoming widespread until after the second century.

This is the history of the 7.000 year plan. It originates as a hazy combination of Jewish speculation and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, mixed liberally with pagan Greek thought by apostate Jews during the inter-testamental era. It then becomes a fringe view in pre-Christian Jewish thought.

It is completely ignored by the New Testament writers, and appears in only two early Christian works around the end of the first century. It finds only one major Christian supporter in the second century, and does not enter mainstream Jewish thought until perhaps the third century.


[1] “Although Hesiod provides us with the earliest extant account of four ages (or, more precisely, of four human races) represented by metals of declining value, there is no way of telling whether this was his own invention, or (as seems more likely) he worked from a pre-existing model (A. Momigliano, ‘The Origins of Universal History’, in Friedman [ed.], The Poet and the Historian, pp. 133–55 [134]). M.L. West argues that this ‘Myth of Ages’ must be supposed to have come to Greece from the east. He finds partial parallels in Iranian (Denkard, Bahman Yasht), Indian (Laws of Manu, Mahâbhârata), and Mesopotamian (Sumerian King List) literature. While these Oriental texts do not combine all the elements found in Hesiod’s scheme of metallic ages, there are many striking similarities.", Paul Niskanen, The Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the Book of Daniel (London;New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 30.

[2] Gerhard F. Hasel, “Sabbath,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 854.

[3] A. Yarbro Collins, “Aristobulus: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (vol. 2; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985), 2834.

[4] “In the Apocalypse of Weeks, 1 En. 93 intimates the government of “his flock” or “all creation” (B and C) by the elect in the eighth week. No mention is made of the Messiah. 2 En. 32:1–33:1 has a similar chronology. The eighth day (i.e., the year 8000) begins a time “not reckoned and unending.””, J. Massyngbaerde Ford, “Millennium,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 832.

[5] Epistle of Barnabas 15.4–5, Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 315.

[6] “Irenaeus (Haer. 5:32–36) elaborates the millenarian theory which he inherited through Papias and Justin. He inserts his eschatological (apocalyptic) beliefs into his recapitulation theory. He states that, as the world was made in six days, so it will end in 6,000 years. The Antichrist, symbolized by the number 666, will reign for three and a half years and will then be destroyed by Christ and sent into the lake of fire. The righteous, however, will be brought to the times of the kingdom, that is, “the rest, the hallowed seventh day.””, J. Massyngbaerde Ford, “Millennium,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 833.

[7] “Sanh. 97b states that the son of David will come after not less than 85 jubilees, he will come in the last one. R. Hanan b. Tahlifa says after 7000 years and R. Abba the son of Raba (Babylonian Amora) after 5000 years. R. Jahocachua predicted 2000 years; Barakhja and R. Dosa, 600 years; Jose the Galilean 60 years or three generations; R. Akiba 40 years and Rabbi three generations (also 365 years).”, J. Massyngbaerde Ford, “Millennium,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 832.

They don’t. The sun is not part of the earth. The “fixed and localized light source” is in the heaven, not the earth. You are making up your interpretation. I am unable to find where you quoted Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown previously to this post.

Ah, gap theory. So what is the light created on day 1? The Scofield commentary you quoted doesn’t clearly say what you say it does, though perhaps greater context would make that clear.

But the text does say X. Do you agree that the text supports the gap theory? Do you agree that it supports the interpretation of eons between days? Or any of the other random notions?

No it isn’t. There’s no logical connection. The days could be both days of creation and days of visions.

You equate the “7000 year plan” with estimates of the age of the earth, which doesn’t follow. It may be that this is the origin of the ~4000 BC age of the earth, but you don’t actually make that connection. Perhaps you think all the connections you have failed to make are so obvious that you don’t have to do it, or perhaps the connections exist but you have failed to cite the proper sources to show that. Whatever, everything you said there looks like a digression from the point.

No one is saying the sun is part of the earth, and no one is saying the light source is the earth. I have no idea how you are reach these bizarre readings. You seem to have totally forgotten the context of this part of the discussion. The context was an interpretation of Genesis 1 in which the days discuss the earth, as opposed to the creation of the entire universe.

You asked me “How can the creation of light itself be supposed to involve only the earth?". I understood you to be referring to the subject under discussion, so I understood you to be asking what it would mean for light to be created during the days of creation, if the days of creation only discuss the creation of what is on the earth. I provided two citations explaining how this is done under this interpretation; under both of them, light is not created, it already exists, and is only gradually revealed on the earth.

For some reason you’re now asking weird questions about the sun being part of the earth and the light source being the earth. I have no idea what you are thinking about, but it’s obviously not the original topic.

Sorry, I didn’t realize I’d forgotten to include that originally.

I have answered this before. It’s the light from the sun, whether the sun is created on that day (as in some interpretations), or the sun had already been created (as in the interpretation of Scofield, and Jamieson, Fassuet, and Brown).

You’re claiming the Scofield commentary doesn’t say that Genesis 1:1 speaks of the earth already being created in the distant past before the days of Genesis 1? Here’s the quotation I provided.

The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope to all the geologic ages.

Here it is, in the footnote to verse 1.

Note footnote three, which refers to verse two, and how it interprets verse two as describing an earth which already existed, having been created in verse one and later fallen into disrepair as a result of some catastrophe in the distant past.

Or maybe you’re saying the Scofield commentary doesn’t say the light on day one doesn’t come from the sun, which already existed before day one? Here’s the quotation I provided.

The sun and the moon were created in the beginning. The light of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.

Here it is in the footnote to verse three.

What’s unclear about that?

What do you mean “the text does say X”? Do you mean “the English text says X”, or “the Hebrew text says X”, or “the text says X, even if it means Y”, or something else? Again, where is the evidence for your conclusion, and the chain of logical reasoning? Again, why do critical scholars study ancient texts in their original language with a range of different tools, if they can derive the meaning just by pointing to an English translation and saying “the text says X”?

Are you aware that Genesis 1 was not originally connected to Genesis 2, and was originally written apart from it as part of a separate document?

The text definitely supports a textual and chronological separation between verse one and verse two. We know this because it opens with the same Sumerian literary convention as the Enuma Elish. So the literary basis of the gap theory has some merit insofar as it appeals to a syntactical and chronological separation between verse one and verse two.

But of course I don’t believe in the catastrophe/renewal gap theory which says Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the universe then the earth falling into disrepair and the days of Genesis 1 refer to six literal days of creation during which God rebuilt and renewed the earth. I don’t believe that has textual support.

To be fair to that interpretation however, it is found in very early Jewish midrash of the third century CE. That midrash correctly identified the textual and chronological dislocation between verses one and two, and (as midrash typically did), sought to “fill the gap” with an explanation for what was “missing”. Consequently the early midrash reads “the earth had become empty and desolate” (instead of the typical English “and the earth was empty and desolate”), to imply some catastrophic event in the distant past which had laid waste to the previously created earth. But I don’t think the text intends this.

No, because there’s no textual or contextual evidence for this.

No, I believe it supports the one I’ve described, for the reasons I’ve described. The day/vision interpretation is based on actual evidence, grounding the text in its original socio-historical context, and is an interpretation which appears early in Jewish and later Christian interpretation, demonstrating it’s not an idea I invented, nor an apologetically motivated interpretation

But I am talking about an interpretation in which the days are days on which a vision was given to a prophet rather than days of creation. When I say interpretation X supports Y, you can’t say “No it doesn’t, if we change interpretation X so it’s actually interpretation Z”.

That’s not what your two citations say. It may be somewhere else in the document you got the citations from, but it isn’t in what you quoted, at least not clearly so. The Scofield source appears to be trying to reconcile the creation of the sun and moon on day 4 with the need for light on day 1 through 3. Whitcomb doesn’t mention at all when the fixed light source was created.

I see you have a new quote from Scofield, which clearly espouses gap theory. Congratulations. But what is the light created on day 1? It can’t be the sun’s light becoming visible, because that happens on day 4.

I have to rely on the English text, since I don’t read Hebrew. Are all the translations poor, and say something grossly different from the Hebrew?

Yes, quite aware. Why?

Do you have any evidence for the day/vision interpretation at the time the text was written? What is your earliest source for that interpretation? Incidentally, why are all the English translations bad?

Of course the Scofield source is trying to reconcile the creation of the sun and the moon on day one with the need for light on day one. That’s the whole point of this exercise. But let’s see if these sources say what I described them as saying. This is what I described them as saying.

First Jameison, Fausset, and Brown.

the heaven and the earth–the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God (Ac 17:24; Ro 11:36). After this preface, the narrative is confined to the earth .

At the risk of being insulting, I’ll through this step by step.

  1. Which part of Genesis is this speaking of? Its speaking of Genesis 1:1.
  2. According to this commentary, what is created in Genesis 1:1? They say “the heaven and the earth–the universe”, and “the whole universe”. That includes the sun.
  3. Do they separate Genesis 1:1 from the actual days, and interpret the days as referring only to the earth? Yes, they say " After this preface*, the narrative is confined to the earth".

So according to this commentary, the sun already exists before the first day, and is not created on the first day. The narrative of the days, this commentary says explicitly, is confined to the earth. From what I quoted originally therefore, it’s obvious that they are saying the sun existed before the fourth day, and even before the first day.

When we look at what they say about the first day, it’s clear they don’t speak of the sun being created on the first day. Instead they speak of the light of the sun being made visible on the earth by breaking up the cloudy vapor which had covered the earth. However, they seem to see this taking place imperfectly, since later on the fourth day they will speak of another purification of the atmosphere, making not just the sun but also the moon and stars visible from earth.

“Whether the sun was created at the same time with, or long before, the earth, the dense accumulation of fogs and vapors which enveloped the chaos had covered the globe with a settled gloom. But by the command of God, light was rendered visible; the thick murky clouds were dispersed, broken, or rarefied, and light diffused over the expanse of waters.”, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 17.

When we look at what they say about the fourth day, it’s clear they don’t speak of the sun being created on the fourth day, but “unveiled” when the atmosphere is “purified”, making the sun, moon, and stars all visible from earth.

“14. let there be lights in the firmament—The atmosphere being completely purified, the sun, moon, and stars were for the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky; and they are described as “in the firmament” which to the eye they appear to be, though we know they are really at vast distances from it.”, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 17.

This looks like another version of what they said already happened on the first day, so it seems they think the clearing of the atmosphere on the first day was only imperfect, revealing the sun but not the moon and stars. But whatever, it’s still clear they are not speaking of the creation of the sun on the fourth day, but the revealing of the sun, moon, and stars by clearing the atmosphere of cloud.

Still speaking of the sun and moon on the fourth day, the say explicitly that neither the sun or moon was “created” on the fourth day, they already existed; instead they were “appointed”.

“Both these lights may be said to be “made” on the fourth day—not created, indeed, for it is a different word that is here used, but constituted, appointed to the important and necessary office of serving as luminaries to the world, and regulating by their motions and their influence the progress and divisions of time.”, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 17.

Let’s look at what he said and see if we can draw any conclusions.

“God created a fixed and localized light source in the heaven in reference to which the rotating earth passed through the same kind of day/night cycle as it has since the creation of the sun.”, John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1986), 31.

  1. He says that the purpose of this light was to create the day/night cycle. This means it was created before or on the first day. You should know he means the first day, because if he meant before the first day then he would have to hold to the gap theory, and Whitcomb was a fanatical opponent of the gap theory; he was a totally fundamentalist literal 24/hour, six day creation, young earth proponent. For him, Genesis 1:1-3 all take place on the first day.

  2. He says that as a result of this light the earth “passed through the same kind of day/night cycle as it has since the creation of the sun”. In other words, the sun was created afterwards.

This supports exactly what I told you before; in Whitcomb’s view this light was created on the first day, and the sun was created on the fourth. Here is exactly what I said.

I then quoted Whitcomb. In case that’s not already clear, here’s another quotation from Whitcomb in another book.

“The fact that the sun was not created until the fourth day does not make the first three days indefinite periods of time, for on the first day God created a fixed and localized light source in the heavens in reference to which the rotating earth passed through the same day/night cycle.”, John Whitcomb, Don DeYoung, and Donald B. DeYoung, Our Created Moon: Earth’s Fascinating Neighbor (New Leaf Publishing Group, 2010), 8.

So yes, in almost exactly the same words he says exactly what I have already told you; he holds the view that “God created a local light source on the first day which was not the sun, and then created the sun on the fourth day”. I hope that’s clear.

Now let’s move on to Scofield.

This is already answered in what I quoted from Scofield. I even provided actual photographs for you. Again, I’m going to walk through this step by step. First, here’s the entire page.

Now let’s see what it says. We’ll start with his footnote on verse one.

But three creative acts are recorded in this chapter: (1) the heavens and the earth, v. 1; (2) animal life, v. 21; and (3) human life, vs. 26, 27. The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages.

Remember, you have seen this before. I showed you an image of it. What does it say?

  1. In all of Genesis 1 there are only three creative acts; the creation of the heavens and the earth in verse one, the creation of animal life in verse 21, and the creation of human life in verses 26 to 27. According to Scofield, these are the only three creative acts of God in Genesis 1.

  2. What’s missing from this list? The creation of the sun on day four. Why? Because Scofield doesn’t believe the sun was created on day four. So this was already sufficient to prove what I had already told you; Scofield believes in the gap theory, so he believes the sun and earth had already been created before verse one, and the sun was not created in verse four.

Now let’s move on to his footnote on verse three. In this footnote he says what I’ve already shown you; that he believes the earth already existed prior to day one, was ruined by a catastrophe in the deep past, and that the days describe the renovation of the earth. This is his explanation of the gap theory.

Now let’s move on to verse three. Again, I already quoted from this footnote and showed you a picture of it, but here it is again.

Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear, made visible. The sun and moon were created “in the beginning.” The “light” of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.

This says two things.

  1. The sun already existed before day one.
  2. The light which appeared here was light from the sun; Scofield states specifically “The “light” of course came from the sun”.

Let’s remember what I told you previously about Scofield’s view.

The idea is that the creation of light is the creation of the sun, but the sun’s light didn’t reach the earth until later, because the sun’s light was obscured by a thick vapor canopy.

That is what I told you. In response you said that this was not clear from what I quoted. I hope it’s clear now. Please let me know if you need additional clarity.

Remember, this is what you said after reading Scofield.

If you had read what Scofield wrote, you would have known what he thinks the light is on day one; yes, he thinks it’s the sun’s light. It’s right there in his footnote on day one, which I not only quoted for you but showed you a photo of. Here it is again.

The “light” of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.

So this is what we have.

  • Scofield speaking explicitly of the light on day one: “The “light” of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light.”
  • You: “But what is the light created on day 1?”

Let’s move on.

You don’t have to rely on the English. You could do what other people do; read an informed commentary.

English translations typically obscure a lot of the details; for example, many of them repeatedly say “God made” when translating two different Hebrew words. The New English Translation makes an effort to show the reader that different words are being used.

  • bara: translated “created” or “bearing”
  • asa: always translated “made”
  • natan: always translated “placed”

Close inspection reveals interesting details; God “created [asa]” the heavens and the earth", but the same word is used of trees “bearing [asa]” fruit. So whatever “asa” means, it has a very broad application to things which come into being, which doesn’t differentiate between specific ways of things coming into being. If you wanted to be literal you could say “God created the heavens and the earth”, and talk of trees “creating fruit”. Of course the NET also uses an abundance of footnotes to help elucidate the meaning intended by their translation, as well as various features of the underlying text.

However this isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that you hold the popular view of translation, instead of the view of someone used to dealing with translations. I spent several years on an email discussion list for professional Bible translators, which was illuminating. In a general sense it’s true to say translators of any text operate on a continuum of conveying it as literally as possible, or interpreting it. In a more accurate sense, it’s true to say translation is always interpretation; as soon as you make a translation decision, you’ve interpreted the text.

If you spend time with professional Bible translators you will find that they typically avoid interpreting the text as much as possible. They are motivated to make the text accessible to as many people as possible. Their translation is also affected by their methodology, and often their background.

Let’s look at two Bible translations of Genesis 2:7.

  • King James Version (1611): and man became a living soul
  • New English Translation (2005): and man became a living being

There is only one word difference here, but there is a profound difference in meaning. Why? The NET footnote says that although the word here is often rendered “soul”, it refers to the entire person; they’re clearly deliberately steering people away from the idea that it refers to the “immortal soul” of later Christian tradition.

“The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה (nefesh khayyah, “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings (see 1:20, 24, 30; 2:19).”, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

So which translation is more accurate? Indisputably the NET. You can look at a half a dozen or more other modern Bible translations and they’ll agree with the NET, rendering the word “living creature”, or “living being”, or “living person”, or even “started breathing”.

How about the NET’s translation of Genesis 1? Does it interpret the text? Only minimally. Is it accurate? Yes.

The issue here is that like most people you treat an ancient text as a self-contained isolated unit which exists in a vacuum. You treat it as if the meaning is transparently available on the surface, with a literal reading. This is exactly what Christian fundamentalists do. It is not what professional literary scholars do, in any field, whether they are secular or not, regardless of the source of the text. You are expecting the translation of the text to do something which a translation is not intended to do.

Some translations do provide additional information to explicate the meaning to the reader, while still leaving much of the interpretation up to them. The NET is one such translation. It has a total of four footnotes on the very first verse of Genesis 1.

1:1 In the beginning1 God2 created3 the heavens and the earth.4

Those footnotes take up nearly a full A4 page. I’ve pasted them at the end of this post. Sometimes the footnotes tell you that the translators can’t make a decision on the text, so they’re going with one rendering but acknowledge it may be wrong. This is how translation actually works.

Then you should be aware of the fact that you need to identify its original socio-historical and intertextual context in order to inform its meaning, instead of just reading an English translation which presents it completely isolated from that context.

We don’t have any evidence for any interpretation of Genesis 1 at the time the text was written. That’s way too early. The text of Genesis 1 most likely dates to the sixth century BCE, but the earliest interpretations we have of the passage don’t date any earlier than about the second century CE.

The earliest certain source I have found is the first century CE. I quoted it for you previously; Philo Judaeus.

They aren’t all bad.


1 tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

sn In the beginning . The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3–31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3)—it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).

2 sn God . This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים, ’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability—he is the “God of gods.”

3 tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא ( bara’ ) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).

4 tn Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Ge 1:1.

Can we agree that the Scofield exegesis does great violence to the text? Or do you think it’s a credible understanding of the intended meaning? The notes you append certainly disagree strongly.

Was the appearance of plants on day 3 an act of creation? Why leave it out?

Yes of course.

No of course not. I’ve already said that.

Because they are sensible; they are not trying to interpret the text to fit a preconception.

According to Scofield, no.

Because verse one says “God created the heavens and the earth”, whereas verse 12 says “the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind”. Consequently Scofield views the appearance of plants as the product of an act of the earth, not a direct act of God. Additionally, Scofield believed that seeds already existed in the earth from the previous creation, having survived the earlier cataclysm, and God just had to tell them to do their thing.

“It is by no means necessary to suppose that the life-germ of seeds perished in the catastrophic judgment which overthrew the primitive order. With the restoration of dry land and light the earth would “bring forth” as described.”

If he was asked he would probably say something like “I differentiate between proximate acts of creation and ultimate acts of creation”. This is a differentiation which goes back to at least Adelard of Bath in the twelfth century, but can probably be found in earlier Christian commentary.

Presumably he says the same for the creation of sea life and birds on day 5. Is that correct?

No. In his footnote to verse one he says the second creative act was “animal life, v. 21”. I quoted it earlier.

But what does he mean by “animal life”? Does it include only day 5 or is it also day 6? Are days 5 and 6 part of the single creative act he asserts? That’s not clear. The language in English seems similar among days 3, 5, and 6. What are the relevant differences, and how do they sort?

@Jonathan_Burke, I think you could have given a different answer to @John_Harshman.

Gen 1:19-20: LET THE WATERS DO IT…
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 AND GOD IS SAID TO DO IT.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:23-24 LET THE EARTH DO IT…
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 AND GOD IS SAID TO DO IT.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In this “Couplet of Couplets” - - we see a “fusion” or “identity” of God working
and working through natural processes.

Let the Waters… and God is doing it.
Let the Earth … and God is doing it.

1 Like

From what I can tell, sea creatures and air creatures.

It includes the animals of day six. He says this in his footnote to verse 21.

The second clause, “every living creature,” as distinguished from fishes merely, is taken up again in verse 24, showing that in the second creative act all animal life is included.

It doesn’t include the humans in verse six, who are differentiated in the footnote I quoted previously.

Yes.

  1. Day three. “Let the land produce [tadese] vegetation… The land produced [tose] vegetation”.

  2. Day five. “Let the water swarm [yisrsu] with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly [yopep] above the earth across the expanse of the sky… God created [yibra] the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind”.

  3. Day six. “Let the land produce [tose] living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind… God made [yaas] the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds”.

  4. Day six. “Let us make [naaseh] humankind… God created humankind [yibra]”.

I don’t know what you mean by “how do they sort?”.

No I couldn’t, because I am explaining what Scofield wrote, not what I believe, and I’m explaining how Scofield expressed himself, not how I would express myself.

@Jonathan_Burke

Sea creatures are related to the air creatuers… because they are spawned by the HEAVENLY WATERS… while fish are spawned by the EARTHLY waters.

Again, I am not talking about how I would classify them. I am talking about how Scofield classified them.

1 Like

This is not useful. You just repeat a contradiction that you refuse to explain.