"Long-agers often respond to the traditional ‘historical week’
reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 with a discussion of ‘ancient cosmology’.
The Ancient Near East (ANE) apparently had a common ‘flat earth, solid sky’ cosmology. This is also said to be embedded in Genesis 1:
Thus, the ‘ancient cosmology’ is incidental to the author’s real point. Therefore, the reasoning goes, we shouldn’t read Genesis 1 as an accurate cosmogony, including its timescale of six 24-hour days (plus one day of rest afterwards). As Haarsma explains:
However, there is another problem with this reasoning. Even if, for argument’s sake, we were to grant that Genesis 1 testifies to this ‘ancient cosmology’, it wouldn’t preclude the cosmos’s being created in six sequential 24-hour days.
Why? The ‘6 + 1 day’ pattern of work and rest in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not a part of this supposed ancient cosmological picture. It’s an element of the narrative distinct from the setting.
Thus, even if we grant the presence of this ‘ancient cosmology’ in Genesis 1, calling the timescale of Genesis 1 ‘incidental’ because we’re supposed to treat the ancient cosmology as incidental does not follow.
One indicative means of emphasis in Hebrew narrative is repetition. There are several key phrases repeated in Genesis 1: “and God said”, “and it was so”, “God saw that it was good”, and “there was evening and morning, the nth day”.
The author clearly wants us to understand that these points are crucial to the story he’s telling. But notice that the numbered days, as ordinary 24-hour days, are one feature of Genesis 1 emphasized through repetition.
This would be true even if the narrative was not historical (e.g. a parable).
Therefore, the numbered ‘days’ of Genesis 1 are not incidental; they are an important part of the author’s point.
So, what significance might the numbered days of Genesis 1 have? Other repeated elements in Genesis 1 emphasize the goodness of God’s creation, or God’s sovereign power over His handiwork. For the numbered days, Exodus 20:8–11 suggests the answer:
CMI
The Ancient Near East (ANE) apparently had a common ‘flat earth, solid sky’ cosmology. This is also said to be embedded in Genesis 1:
“Rather, they believed the earth was flat, with heavens above and waters under the earth. Often they referred to the sky as a solid dome, with an ocean of water above it; the dome could open its floodgates, resulting in rain.
“This picture helps us see Genesis 1 more clearly. On day 2 (Gen 1: 6– 8), we read of God creating a ‘vault’ (NIV) or ‘firmament’ (KJV) to separate the waters above from the waters below. This is the same structure found in Egyptian and Babylonian thought.”According to this thinking, this shows that God ‘accommodated’ to the ancient audience by letting the writers tell the story in terms understandable to them.
Thus, the ‘ancient cosmology’ is incidental to the author’s real point. Therefore, the reasoning goes, we shouldn’t read Genesis 1 as an accurate cosmogony, including its timescale of six 24-hour days (plus one day of rest afterwards). As Haarsma explains:
“Did you notice the line of reasoning here? We started by considering Genesis 1 within its ancient context, not considering science at all. Yet we learned something relevant for our modern debates: Genesis 1 deliberately uses concepts the first readers would understand rather than the modern scientific picture. This shows that the intent of Genesis 1 was not to address the ‘how’ and ‘when’ questions we ask in modern science; these were not a major concern in a pre-scientific era.”Creationists have rightly pointed out that this assumes such falsified scientific ideas are clearly asserted in the Bible.
However, there is another problem with this reasoning. Even if, for argument’s sake, we were to grant that Genesis 1 testifies to this ‘ancient cosmology’, it wouldn’t preclude the cosmos’s being created in six sequential 24-hour days.
Why? The ‘6 + 1 day’ pattern of work and rest in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not a part of this supposed ancient cosmological picture. It’s an element of the narrative distinct from the setting.
Thus, even if we grant the presence of this ‘ancient cosmology’ in Genesis 1, calling the timescale of Genesis 1 ‘incidental’ because we’re supposed to treat the ancient cosmology as incidental does not follow.
One indicative means of emphasis in Hebrew narrative is repetition. There are several key phrases repeated in Genesis 1: “and God said”, “and it was so”, “God saw that it was good”, and “there was evening and morning, the nth day”.
The author clearly wants us to understand that these points are crucial to the story he’s telling. But notice that the numbered days, as ordinary 24-hour days, are one feature of Genesis 1 emphasized through repetition.
This would be true even if the narrative was not historical (e.g. a parable).
Therefore, the numbered ‘days’ of Genesis 1 are not incidental; they are an important part of the author’s point.
So, what significance might the numbered days of Genesis 1 have? Other repeated elements in Genesis 1 emphasize the goodness of God’s creation, or God’s sovereign power over His handiwork. For the numbered days, Exodus 20:8–11 suggests the answer:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. … For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”In Genesis 1, Moses likely emphasized God’s creative activities as a work week to remind the original (ancient Israelite) readership that it was the paradigm from which Israel derived her own work week. This was important because the Sabbath..........."
CMI