The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism

a reply to: luthier

your link seems to suggest the exact opposite as a 24-hour view for the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1:

He notes that the first day in the account is actually described not as the ‘first day’ but ‘one day’ (see Genesis 1:5). For him this special day was a type of eternity, meant to delineate the beginning of time, rather than demarcate a 24-hour period in an ordinary week.

Few quotations again there, but this already seems to suggest something different than what you were suggesting by using that as a response to my question: Basil was not a young earth creationist.

That is...if the source is reliable and accurate regarding his views. But like I said, still missing some evidence for earlier mentioned claims, implications and suggestions from others about this subject (and the more conflicting information I come across the more suspicious I'm getting of it, for me in my mind, young earth creationism starts with the SDA in 1923 until I see clearer evidence otherwise, perhaps the ideas were around sooner, but didn't seem to gain much track in the major organized religions until after 1880, as per the date mentioned for the introduction of the word "creationism" in my earlier quotation of the etymology dictionary). Of course I'm very openminded of this cause surely all these claims must be based on something more then conflicting information about Basil...and missing information from Ussher...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier

your link seems to suggest the exact opposite as a 24-hour view for the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1:

He notes that the first day in the account is actually described not as the ‘first day’ but ‘one day’ (see Genesis 1:5). For him this special day was a type of eternity, meant to delineate the beginning of time, rather than demarcate a 24-hour period in an ordinary week.

Few quotations again there, but this already seems to suggest something different than what you were suggesting by using that as a response to my question: Basil was not a young earth creationist.

That is...if the source is reliable and accurate regarding his views. But like I said, still missing some evidence for earlier mentioned claims, implications and suggestions from others about this subject (and the more conflicting information I come across the more suspicious I'm getting of it, for me in my mind, young earth creationism starts with the SDA in 1923 until I see clearer evidence otherwise, perhaps the ideas were around sooner, but didn't seem to gain much track in the major organized religions until after 1880, as per the date mentioned for the introduction of the word "creationism" in my earlier quotation of the etymology dictionary). Of course I'm very openminded of this cause surely all these claims must be based on something more then conflicting information about Basil...and missing information from Ussher...

Well then what you are asking is impossible to give you over the Internet. You need either a college database or to go to Rome.

By the way I wasn't talking about what the catholics interpretation of basil was. I was asking you to read his own work.

Like this.
‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day" (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370]).


There are literally dozens of interpretations prior to usher. Whether or not you believe they were doctored is irrelevant. You could say that about any historical writing. Some believers the 6 days were 7,000 years even. So what. It's still wrong. The whole point of Genesis was to explain creation not the scientific timeline. Anyway you I terpret Genesis the time is off if you look literally at it.

originally posted by: luthier
Well I am kind of an agnostic atheist who leans towards diesm and pantheism.

Ah, just like Plato I see (except for the atheism part that contradicts with pantheism). I know, 'nothing new under the sun' (Eccl.1:9)

Everybody loves Plato's philosophies/ideas of reality these days. From Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Muslim to Hindu, from Jew to New Age gurus and people that call themselves enlightened (Latin: Illuminatus). And of course what some people refer to as neoplatonism (a large collection of philosophies that were expanded from Plato's philosophies involving Pantheism and Deism by his fans and students). Plato was one of the most influential philosophers in the world and influenced both theology in Christendom as well as Judaism, Islam and atheism+philosophical naturalism+agnosticism+pantheism+deism (which have a lot of overlap that's why I'm using +).

Btw, there seems to be something important missing from your quotation and the last bit doesn't seem to say anything about the days in Genesis specificly, just days in general. Odd though that when quoting Basil like that you leave readers easily with the impression that Basil thought of the days in Genesis as 24-hour days yet the same Catholic source that doesn't quote him completely (and does'n't point out what I just pointed out, that the last bit of the sentence doesn't seem to be referring to the days in Genesis but just a general statement about days meant to clarify something else he said, the full quote would help with determining that) also suggests what I quoted from them. Or should I not call it odd but typical (vagueness rules in some circles).

Something else I just noticed again because I was thinking of people's love for Plato's philosophies:

CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS

“The Orthodox Church . . . has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom,” states the writer Kallistos, who is a monk. Did these Church Fathers base their teachings on the inspired Scriptures?
Regarding Basil the Great, the book The Fathers of the Greek Church states: “His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’” The same was true of Gregory of Nazianzus. “In his view the victory and the superiority of the Church would best be shown in its complete adoption of the traditions of classical culture.”

Source: The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: luthier
Well I am kind of an agnostic atheist who leans towards diesm and pantheism.

Ah, just like Plato I see (except for the atheism part that contradicts with pantheism). I know, 'nothing new under the sun' (Eccl.1:9)

Everybody loves Plato's philosophies/ideas of reality these days. From Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Muslim to Hindu, from Jew to New Age gurus and people that call themselves enlightened (Latin: Illuminatus). And of course what some people refer to as neoplationism (a large collection of philosophies that were expanded from Plato's philosophies involving Pantheism and Deism by his fans and students). Plato was one of the most influential philosophers in the world and influenced both theology in Christendom as well as Judaism, Islam and atheism+philosophical naturalism+agnosticism+pantheism+deism (which have a lot of overlap that's why I'm using +).

More in line with Spinoza. But yeah Plato is great.

The atheism label is dumb regarding my beliefs it's just something I say because it kind of denotes I don't believe in theism in a scripture sense. I respect the wisdom in the poetry unlike many atheists who just loathe it.

Truly my beliefs are evolutionary. I believe in a kind of pandiesm in an agnostic way? Hmmm. It easier to talk specifics than labels regarding what I believe I guess.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.

I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.

I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.

In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.

Well that's a big strawman.

I never said science was the only form of truth. Philosophy has plenty truths. The categorical imparitive for instance.

I don't think science proves why or intends to.

Cosmology even only has intention to prove origin.

I am not a bible believer but I respect your beliefs. I can't denie your belief in them or want to.

If you believe however the earth is 6000 years old that would be a literal interpretation. Do you believe that or that Genesis is allegory?

Guess you edited that. I still don't really understand exactly what you believe is a metaphore and what is real.

You are correct the design could have been made before the sun and earth etc.

None if that proves a biblical God. It just proves a designer. Just like almost every other origin story. Metaphysics doesn't deal with scientific proof. It doesn't need to.

My issue would be thinking the bible is saying the earth is 6000 years old and God is playing tricks on nonbelievers. That is a poor arguement.

"Popular science" is entirely metaphor.

You mean the one that allows you type this rediculous arguement in the internet right now?

No, that is technology.

"Popular Science" is the dumbing down of scientific concepts to where the general populace can understand.

Unfortunately, real science is hard and requires knowledge of mathematics and a vast framework of foundational precepts. Very few of the general public pursue this level of education and none of them have any experience that relates to things like quantum interactions, the standard model of particle physics, stellar nucleosynthesis or even the ever popular 'Black Holes'.

So, the public are given simplified metaphors to try and explain the deep concepts. That is "Popular Science" - entirely metaphorical because the truth of the matter is entirely beyond them.

Does that make my "rediculous arguement" (sic) somewhat clearer?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.

I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.

I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.

In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.

Well that's a big strawman.

I never said science was the only form of truth. Philosophy has plenty truths. The categorical imparitive for instance.

I don't think science proves why or intends to.

Cosmology even only has intention to prove origin.

I am not a bible believer but I respect your beliefs. I can't denie your belief in them or want to.

If you believe however the earth is 6000 years old that would be a literal interpretation. Do you believe that or that Genesis is allegory?

Guess you edited that. I still don't really understand exactly what you believe is a metaphore and what is real.

You are correct the design could have been made before the sun and earth etc.

None if that proves a biblical God. It just proves a designer. Just like almost every other origin story. Metaphysics doesn't deal with scientific proof. It doesn't need to.

My issue would be thinking the bible is saying the earth is 6000 years old and God is playing tricks on nonbelievers. That is a poor arguement.

"Popular science" is entirely metaphor.

You mean the one that allows you type this rediculous arguement in the internet right now?

No, that is technology.

"Popular Science" is the dumbing down of scientific concepts to where the general populace can understand.

Unfortunately, real science is hard and requires knowledge of mathematics and a vast framework of foundational precepts. Very few of the general public pursue this level of education and none of them have any experience that relates to things like quantum interactions, the standard model of particle physics, stellar nucleosynthesis or even the ever popular 'Black Holes'.

So, the public are given simplified metaphors to try and explain the deep concepts. That is "Popular Science" - entirely metaphorical because the truth of the matter is entirely beyond them.

Does that make my "rediculous arguement" (sic) somewhat clearer?

Yes and I am sorry for mistaking what you meant. Full retraction.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: luthier
Well I am kind of an agnostic atheist who leans towards diesm and pantheism.

Ah, just like Plato I see (except for the atheism part that contradicts with pantheism). I know, 'nothing new under the sun' (Eccl.1:9)

Everybody loves Plato's philosophies/ideas of reality these days. From Roman Catholic to Baptist, from Muslim to Hindu, from Jew to New Age gurus and people that call themselves enlightened (Latin: Illuminatus). And of course what some people refer to as neoplatonism (a large collection of philosophies that were expanded from Plato's philosophies involving Pantheism and Deism by his fans and students). Plato was one of the most influential philosophers in the world and influenced both theology in Christendom as well as Judaism, Islam and atheism+philosophical naturalism+agnosticism+pantheism+deism (which have a lot of overlap that's why I'm using +).

Btw, there seems to be something important missing from your quotation and the last bit doesn't seem to say anything about the days in Genesis specificly, just days in general. Odd though that when quoting Basil like that you leave readers easily with the impression that Basil thought of the days in Genesis as 24-hour days yet the same Catholic source that doesn't quote him completely (and does'n't point out what I just pointed out, that the last bit of the sentence doesn't seem to be referring to the days in Genesis but just a general statement about days meant to clarify something else he said, the full quote would help with determining that) also suggests what I quoted from them. Or should I not call it odd but typical (vagueness rules in some circles).

Something else I just noticed again because I was thinking of people's love for Plato's philosophies:

CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS

“The Orthodox Church . . . has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom,” states the writer Kallistos, who is a monk. Did these Church Fathers base their teachings on the inspired Scriptures?
Regarding Basil the Great, the book The Fathers of the Greek Church states: “His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’” The same was true of Gregory of Nazianzus. “In his view the victory and the superiority of the Church would best be shown in its complete adoption of the traditions of classical culture.”

Source: The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?

‘“And there was evening and there was morning: one day.” And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day”, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.’ (Homily II:8)

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Well IF we're speaking biblical...

A 24 hour day wouldn't have happened until after the sun was "created"

the obvious rebuttal is < paraphrasing > " on the 3rd day , christ rose " - was that 72 hours or 3000 years - yes i am being feceacious

Well... Christ didn't actually rise in "three days" according to the texts...

3pm friday... to Sunday morning

And no i don't see your point...

The Bible does not record Jesus as dying on Friday - that is part of the Easter celebration which to me looks like a Christian hijacking of a pagan celebration from: its name, its duration and the fact that it is nearly a month away from Passover (when the events celebrated actually occurred).

The Bible records that Jesus rose on Sunday (the first day of the week) after three days in the tomb.

From the Biblical account, He was crucified at 9:00 AM (the third hour) on the 14th of Nisan (the Day of Preparation for Passover, Erev Pesach) in the Hebrew year 3793 and died at 3PM the same day (six hours on the cross).

The body was prepared and wrapped and was interred that night, which would be most likely be the 15th of Nisan but may have been before sundown.

The 14th of Nisan 3793 began at sundown Tuesday, 3rd of April AD 33 in the Roman Calendar (adjusting out the 10 days added by Pope Gregory in 1752) and ended sundown Wednesday, 4th April.

So, Jesus died at 3:00 PM on Wednesday afternoon 4th of April, 33 AD (in the Julian calendar), was put in the tomb later that night and the tomb was found empty on Sunday morning, more than three days after His being put in the tomb.

All the dates and times line up with the Biblical record. The Easter ceremony does not.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.

I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.

I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.

In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.

Well that's a big strawman.

I never said science was the only form of truth. Philosophy has plenty truths. The categorical imparitive for instance.

I don't think science proves why or intends to.

Cosmology even only has intention to prove origin.

I am not a bible believer but I respect your beliefs. I can't denie your belief in them or want to.

If you believe however the earth is 6000 years old that would be a literal interpretation. Do you believe that or that Genesis is allegory?

Guess you edited that. I still don't really understand exactly what you believe is a metaphore and what is real.

You are correct the design could have been made before the sun and earth etc.

None if that proves a biblical God. It just proves a designer. Just like almost every other origin story. Metaphysics doesn't deal with scientific proof. It doesn't need to.

My issue would be thinking the bible is saying the earth is 6000 years old and God is playing tricks on nonbelievers. That is a poor arguement.

"Popular science" is entirely metaphor.

You mean the one that allows you type this rediculous arguement in the internet right now?

No, that is technology.

"Popular Science" is the dumbing down of scientific concepts to where the general populace can understand.

Unfortunately, real science is hard and requires knowledge of mathematics and a vast framework of foundational precepts. Very few of the general public pursue this level of education and none of them have any experience that relates to things like quantum interactions, the standard model of particle physics, stellar nucleosynthesis or even the ever popular 'Black Holes'.

So, the public are given simplified metaphors to try and explain the deep concepts. That is "Popular Science" - entirely metaphorical because the truth of the matter is entirely beyond them.

Does that make my "rediculous arguement" (sic) somewhat clearer?

Yes and I am sorry for mistaking what you meant. Full retraction.

Thank you.

a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct, Easter is a Pagan festival, but you aren't correct about:

The Bible records that Jesus rose on Sunday...

The whole Sunday thing is because it's easier for Churches to get attendance on Sunday (it's a marketing choice), that's why they have their thing on Sunday every year, but since the Jews used a different calendar, it's on a different weekday every year.

Thanks luthier btw for a more fuller quote from Basil, I'm still noticing he might be talking about days in general though, what I mean is that if I would come across him saying something that confirms what your initial link said about him:

For him this special day was a type of eternity, meant to delineate the beginning of time, rather than demarcate a 24-hour period in an ordinary week.

It might not even conflict with what you just quoted if he was merely describing a 24-hour day without saying exactly that that was what the days in Genesis were or that Genesis 1:1 was included in the 1st creative day as young earth creationists teach (the subject being "a wish to determine the measure of day and night" in general "and to combine the time that they contain", perhaps he viewed the other days than the first to be 24 hours each, I find his words very confusing); he seems to be focussed on some other subject in this quote than identifying the days in Genesis as 24 hours each. Except for the 1 line that confuses me the most:

Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration.

The first part of the statement seems a general statement about days, yet the ending does seem to suggest he might be applying it to Genesis as well, or is he just talking about how "days" are to be viewed and appealing to Scripture for that view in general (not specificly the days of Genesis chapter 1) but not ignoring his other view that he might assume his reader is aware of?

I'm not expecting you to figure it out for me, just thinking out loud here. If he elsewhere gives an indication that "For him this special day was a type of eternity, meant to delineate the beginning of time, rather than demarcate a 24-hour period in an ordinary week", then that does sound rather contradictory indeed with what you just quoted. Like I'm used to getting from Plato when he's talking in contradictions about the myth of the immortal soul. So that does sound like the book The Fathers of the Greek Church got it spot on when they said regarding Basil the Great:

“His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’”

Here's something I read from Plato, it's not as contradictory as some of the other stuff I've read from him but it still sounds weird and confusing, just like Basil:

“Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”—Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

More weird stuff from Plato's teacher Socrates about that subject (I hope it's not too off-topic, but it sort of comes back to what I quoted from the online etymology dictionary regarding the word "creationism": "...originally a ...theological position that God immediately created a soul for each person born", which ties in with this Platonic way of thinking about the soul, I already quoted something about that before with a link with more details):

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

Source: Soul: Insight, Volume 2

Ah, now I found the whole thing, the rest of the quote does clear it up a bit that Basil indeed was not a young earth creationist and did not believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours each, he was indeed, as I suspected and tried to indicate, just referring to 24-hour days in general as per the topic of "a wish to determine the measure of day and night", the rest makes it clear that he did see the days in Genesis as ages or periods and that he actually viewed the whole first day/period/age as seperate from the other days (rather than just Genesis 1:1 seperate from the 6 creative days/periods/eras). Quoting Basil and continuing a bit more where you left off:

It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day," it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others.

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Hexaemeron, Homily II (Basil)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct, Easter is a Pagan festival, but you aren't correct about:

The Bible records that Jesus rose on Sunday...

The whole Sunday thing is because it's easier for Churches to get attendance on Sunday (it's a marketing choice), that's why they have their thing on Sunday every year, but since the Jews used a different calendar, it's on a different weekday every year.

...

Nope:

Matthew 28:1 "Now after the Sabbath, near dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb".

Mark 16:1-2 "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome purchased [sweet-smelling] spices, so that they might go and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen".

Luke 24:1 "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, the women went to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared [to finish anointing the body]".

John 20:1 "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw the stone [already] removed from the [groove across the entrance of the] tomb".

John 20:19 "So when it was evening on that same day, the first day of the week, though the disciples were [meeting] behind barred doors for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them, and said, 'Peace to you'.”

The first day of the week (Sunday), the day after the Sabbath (Saturday) is clearly and repeatedly mentioned in the Bible as the day that Jesus rose.

a reply to: chr0naut

JUST a few hours before he died, Jesus instituted a special way to commemorate his death. This observance became known as “the Lord’s evening meal,” or “the Lord’s supper.” (1 Corinthians 11:20; English Standard Version) Showing the importance of the occasion, Jesus commanded: “Do this in memory of me.” (Luke 22:19, The Bible in Basic English) Do you desire to obey Jesus? If so, then you will view the anniversary of Jesus’ death as the most important day of the year.
...
When?

To answer that question, we need to understand two things. First, in Bible times a new day began in the evening, at sunset, and ended the next day at sunset. A day, therefore, ran from evening to evening.—Leviticus 23:32.

Second, the Bible does not use the calendar that we use today. Rather than using months with such names as March and April, the Bible speaks of such months as Adar and Nisan. (Esther 3:7) The Jews counted their months from new moon to new moon. They celebrated the Passover on the 14th day of the first month of their calendar, Nisan. (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16) That day, Nisan 14, was the same date that the Romans impaled our Lord Jesus Christ. He died 1,545 years after the first Passover meal was celebrated. What a special date Nisan 14 is!

But what date corresponds to Nisan 14 on our calendar today? A simple calculation helps us arrive at the proper date. Nisan 1 starts when the new moon nearest the spring equinox (the start of spring in the Northern Hemisphere) becomes visible at sunset in Jerusalem. If we count 14 days from that event, we arrive at Nisan 14. This date is usually the day of the full moon.

Source: Are You Prepared for the Most Important Day of the Year?

What counts for Nisan 14 also counts for determining the moment he was raised from the dead by his Father and his God whose name is still Jehovah (in English), no matter what efforts people take to twist that information and diss that particular spelling of his name in the English language by bringing up the Hebrew language or alternate options. But perhaps I shouldn't have stirred up that particular hornet's nest.

Acts 2:24a (KJV):

Whom God hath raised up...

2/3 of Jesus didn't raise up 1/3 of himself that was dead and in "hell" according to the KJV. That's about as contradictory as Stephen Hawking's universe creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything. (couldn't resist, sorry, had to point out the obvious)

Basil also says a little bit further on ( I was just a little late editing that in, but it also shows he wasn't a young earth creationist or believer in a young earth, etc.):

Thus whether you call it day, or whether you call it eternity, you express the same idea. Give this state the name of day; there are not several, but only one. If you call it eternity still it is unique and not manifold. Thus it is in order that you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future life, that Scripture marks by the word "one" the day which is the type of eternity, the first fruits of days, the contemporary of light, the holy Lord's day honoured by the Resurrection of our Lord. And the evening and the morning were one day.

Same source towards the end. So seems like the initial quote I used from your Catholic source is pretty accurate and not to nag, but, it seems you had some wrong views about it when we started this off in response to me looking for evidence of young earth creationism before 1880. I think Ussher is still the best bet to find it though, cause I think I've seen him use exact dates per day, but I don't remember if that was for the creative days or things that happened after humanity was created (and I don't know his views of Genesis 1:1).

So in short, thanks for helping me find the stuff about Basil and getting a clearer picture as to what he was teaching people, but I will have to continue my search to change my mind regarding young earth creationism and where it came from. Basil doesn't work for me (I also don't know if Ellen White or George McCready Price referenced any of his work, but I somewhat doubt it given what Basil says about the 1st day in Genesis).

Remember what I quoted from wiki? Perhaps good as a reminder:

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a renewed interest in proposals that the Earth was thousands of years old,...In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth.

My question remains, was it really a "renewed interest"? Basil to me already clearly doesn't agree with that view. But then again, Basil isn't mentioned on the wikipage. Others are though, but no details regarding their exact views of what was what. Obviously the earth is already created in Genesis 1:1, and Basil's view of this is now clear enough for me to conclude that he didn't think that all happened in 24 hours approx. 6000 years ago (for Basil it would be about 4300 years).

Mind you that Genesis 1:1 is not part of the 1st creative day/period/era and that I'm not sure yet if Basil considered Genesis 1:1 to be a part of the events on the 1st creative day/period/era. That is not clear from this piece of text. Perhaps LifeisGrand can use his reserved post to help clear up why Genesis 1:1 does not describe the events on the 1st creative day/period/era. And where those events exactly start (since the OP might not have brought that out for everyone).

a reply to: whereislogic

I've been mostly silent on my own thread, as no one has directed any posts at me in a while. But I must say, your study is very good.

And your name is apt. Where, indeed, has logic gone?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut

JUST a few hours before he died, Jesus instituted a special way to commemorate his death. This observance became known as “the Lord’s evening meal,” or “the Lord’s supper.” (1 Corinthians 11:20; English Standard Version) Showing the importance of the occasion, Jesus commanded: “Do this in memory of me.” (Luke 22:19, The Bible in Basic English) Do you desire to obey Jesus? If so, then you will view the anniversary of Jesus’ death as the most important day of the year.
...
When?

To answer that question, we need to understand two things. First, in Bible times a new day began in the evening, at sunset, and ended the next day at sunset. A day, therefore, ran from evening to evening.—Leviticus 23:32.

Second, the Bible does not use the calendar that we use today. Rather than using months with such names as March and April, the Bible speaks of such months as Adar and Nisan. (Esther 3:7) The Jews counted their months from new moon to new moon. They celebrated the Passover on the 14th day of the first month of their calendar, Nisan. (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16) That day, Nisan 14, was the same date that the Romans impaled our Lord Jesus Christ. He died 1,545 years after the first Passover meal was celebrated. What a special date Nisan 14 is!

But what date corresponds to Nisan 14 on our calendar today? A simple calculation helps us arrive at the proper date. Nisan 1 starts when the new moon nearest the spring equinox (the start of spring in the Northern Hemisphere) becomes visible at sunset in Jerusalem. If we count 14 days from that event, we arrive at Nisan 14. This date is usually the day of the full moon.

Source: Are You Prepared for the Most Important Day of the Year?

What counts for Nisan 14 also counts for determining the moment he was raised from the dead by his Father and his God whose name is still Jehovah (in English), no matter what efforts people take to twist that information and diss that particular spelling of his name in the English language by bringing up the Hebrew language or alternate options. But perhaps I shouldn't have stirred up that particular hornet's nest.

Acts 2:24a (KJV):

Whom God hath raised up...

2/3 of Jesus didn't raise up 1/3 of himself that was dead and in "hell" according to the KJV. That's about as contradictory as Stephen Hawking's universe creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything. (couldn't resist, sorry, had to point out the obvious)

That quoted passage states that Passover is on 14th of Nisan. That is incorrect.

The name of the Hebrew God is represented in the original texts by the Hebrew letters "YHWH" (יהוה). The name "Jehovah" was first used about 1200 AD in Germany where Jewish Masoretic scholars added the vowels from the Hebrew word "Adonai" (the plural of "Lord" in Hebrew) to the consonantal name of God, "YHWH". Academics today agree that the traditional vocalization of the Tetragrammaton is "Yahweh", not "Jehovah". Neither name is of English origin.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is curious that while most posts in the Origins and Creationism forum, usually get a barrage of attacks by people who believe in evolution, they have been mostly silent.

That is most telling.

Perhaps it is because they are reasoning and listening? I don't know. But I do know that I have helped several people who did not believe in God because of radical fundamentalist views of the Holy Scriptures, see what it is really saying.

Have you been able to do so?

Like was stated in the OP, this post wasn't just for them. It was for Creationists too.

a reply to: chr0naut

Leviticus 23:5 (NW):

In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, at twilight* is the Passover to Jehovah.

* = Lit., “between the two evenings.”

Numbers 28:16 (NW):

“‘In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, will be Jehovah’s Passover.

Esther 3:7 (NW):

In the first month, that is, the month of Niʹsan,* in the 12th year of King A·has·u·eʹrus, they cast Pur (that is, the Lot) before Haʹman to determine the day and the month, and it fell on the 12th month, that is, Aʹdar.*

* = See App B15 Hebrew Calendar

a reply to: whereislogic

There is no doubt that the Passover, the day Israel was freed from Egyptian slavery was on Nisan 14, 1513 B. C. E. 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant in 1943 B. C. E. on Nisan 14.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

why is there no doubt?

a reply to: Akragon

You misread the statement. There IS NO DOUBT.

It did not say there is doubt.

If you are wondering about the calendar it is based on a lunar cycle, and begins on the new moon, and most of the times 14 days later is the full moon.

Nisan is the 1st month on the Jewish Calender. Nisan 14th is the full moon.

That was when the Israelites were released from slavery.