I'm going to ignore any reference you make to "Scientism" until you confirm exactly what you mean.
"Scientism" is very clearly defined by me in the OP of the thread.
How could there be cycles of light and darkness if verse 18 states that the two great lights divide the light from the dark? And in verse 15 we see that they are put there to give light to the earth? Was light given to the earth prior to that point?
Yes. Light itself was created on day one - and is in fact the mechanism for there to BE a day one. It was the creation of light, and the separation of that light from the darkness, that constituted a "day" on earth. One light/dark cycle on earth (actually the waters from which the earth would soon be formed) is what God defined as a day. The very concept of, and term for, a "day" came from God - and referred only to a single light/dark cycle (or the light portion of it) on earth.
I assume that you were thinking that the sun is the reason for light on earth. The sun and moon each give their own light, but that light is not the light created on day one. New Jerusalem, like the pre-earth blob of waters, will also have light, but no sun.
Despite the mention of light and darkness, there is nothing that actually states that light was cast on the earth prior to verse 15 during day 4.
Sure there is. Firstly, the blob of waters that would become the earth were covered in darkness, right? (Gen 1:2) Then God said, "Let there be light", right? And God separated the light from the darkness, right? Do you think that means that God created light somewhere else besides the formless and void earth? If so, please elaborate on where you think this light was, if not breaking up the darkness that previously covered the earth.
Secondly, when God created the sun and moon, he said the former would
govern the day, and the latter would
govern the night (which God named the darkness). That tells you that day and night were already occurring on earth before God created those two lights to not only shine their own light on the earth and serve as signs for the passage of time, but also to govern the day and night that were already existing beforehand.
You therefore agree that there are figurative uses of "day" in Genesis.
Yes. The singular form of yowm was used figuratively in the Bible, just like the singular form of day is used figuratively by us, ie: "back in the day of prohibition".
There must be a judgement call to determine whether a particular use is literal or figurative. Human judgement is subject to error therefore it is possible you have the wrong impression of which kind of "day" is meant in Genesis 1. There is no such thing as a default for this, that's not how the study of language works. We can evaluate statistical usage of words and gauge likelihood based on other usage and context, but there is no magical "default" meaning that exists.
Although it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that "back in the day of prohibition" is the figurative use of "day" referring to an unspecified period of time, there are also the clues that I've laid out for you before... clues that you didn't bother to address in your lengthy response for some reason. 🤔
What if I referred to "the FIRST day of prohibition", or to "day 23 of prohibition"? Then would I be still talking about an unspecified general time period? Or would my inclusion of numerical values make it clear that I was talking about literal days?
What if I referred to "the morning of the first day of prohibition", or "the evening of the 23rd day of prohibition"? Would I then be talking about an unspecified time period? Or would the inclusion of morning and evening make it clear that I was talking about literal days?
Of course you'll agree that these additions make it abundantly clear that I now mean literal days, right? Well, it is the same in the Bible. Every single time the word yowm (day) is used in scripture and includes either evening/morning or a numerical value, it is always a literal day.
Of course you will argue that just because it's that way in every other scripture in the Bible, Genesis 1 may be the exception, right?
So then we move on to the plural word "days" - which is never in the history of the earth used as a figurative general period of time. Even in the figurative phrase, "back in the days of Noah", while the phrase itself refers to a general period of time, the word "days" refers to literal days.
So when God says that He created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days, He includes the numerical value and the plural word "days". These are clearly literal days.
And as if that is not enough, God explicitly EQUATED those six days with the six LITERAL days the Israelites were to work before taking a day of rest. He said that they should work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE He worked six days and rested on the seventh.
Jocund, if you respond again, please make sure to directly address these points I just remade - since you blew them off in this response. Thanks.
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday...
...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I asked before, and I'll ask again... Please DEFINE the word "day" in these passages. Also keep in mind two things:
1. How God may or may not EXPERIENCE the passing of a day has no bearing on what God means when He told the Israelites to work six and rest on the seventh BECAUSE He also worked six and then rested on the seventh. In other words, God is fully capable of conveying a day or number of days to us, regardless of how He personally experienced that day or those days. After all, God is the one who devised the concept of a light/dark earth cycle, and named that cycle a day, right? God is also capable of telling us that He created over the course of thousands, millions, or billions of years if He wanted to.
2. Peter's statement goes both ways. So while old-earth proponents are eager to misuse this metaphorical teaching that is in no way related to Genesis to promote billions of years, they always neglect the reverse side of the statement. They only promote that a "day" could be 365,000 times LONGER than a literal day, but forget that Peter's statement also means that a "day" for God could equally be 365,000 times SHORTER than a literal day. That would amount to a couple of seconds of our time to create everything. Of course, we won't see you ever promoting that idea, will we?
The phrasing states that the sun stood still for a day: a measure which is clearly made independently of the movement of the sun.
So there can be a "day" independent of the movement of the sun - as with the first 3 days of creation?
"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" - Joshua 10:13c KJV
Please define the word "day" in that passage as well. The writer was obviously estimating the amount of extra time the sun stood still in heaven, right? 12 extra hours? 24 extra hours? It would have to be one of those two, wouldn't it?
Anyway, it appears as if you are bending over so far backwards to avoid just accepting the most logical and straightforward meaning of the scriptural texts that you've bumped your head on the ground.
