3E-Darkness becomes Light (optional excursus)

If the light is the sun, and the darkness is the dark molecular cloud in which it formed, the straightforward interpretation is that God saw the sun and then separated the sun from the darkness in which it formed. There is strong data support for the formation of the sun in a dense cluster, such as M67, possibly within M67. In this case, the planets could not have formed unless the sun was quickly removed. Researchers have been puzzled by the rapid exit of the sun from such a cluster, as described in 3-6 The birth environment of the sun. This verse indicates that God moved the sun out of the greater dark molecular cloud in which it formed.

In v. 5, "God named the light day and the darkness he called night, and there was evening and morning the first day." God often named entities or people in the Bible based on their future purpose rather than their present condition. Thus, God named the protosun day even though it had yet to reach the main sequence phase and was even yet to become a class 1 young stellar object. Likewise, it would also be reasonable to name the dark molecular cloud as night, which would form the stars that populate the night sky: the dark molecular cloud that formed the sun also formed tens of thousands of stars. In the case of the young sun, the cluster that the sun originated in might not have been far from the ultimate location of the sun and would dominated the night sky.

There were a few possible reason not to name the light as the sun (Shemesh). First, it was not the sun but the protosun, and it was encased in the molecular cloud envelope. Second, Shemesh was the name of the Canaanite sun God.

The natural history of the solar system and the questions surrounding its origin align well with Moses' description of the first day.

2.     Dark chaos Dark molecular cloud

A.    Formless and void Earth

B.    Darkness over the surface of the deep

C.            Spirit moving over the surface of the waters

3.      Light appears Formation of protosun

4.      God saw the light and separated it from the darkness Separation of protosun from M67?

5.      God named the light day and the darkness he called night Sun is day and stars are night

The day-age interpretation.

In the early 19th century, George Stanley Faber[3] thought that he saw a correlation between the sequence of the fossil record and the sequence of Moses' six days. He proposed that each of the days corresponds with an age of geologic time. This was called the day-age interpretation and was popular in academia and in the church during the 19th century.

Hebrew (Bible) and Arabic (Qur’an) have many common words, and one of them is the word translated as “days” in Genesis 1. This word is yom or yawm. In Hebrew and Arabic, yom does not just refer to 24-hr days. The Qur’an has a similar account of six days, and Muslims believe that Moses' six days were six ages of time. 

"Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54) Qur’an

Although a twenty-four-hour day is the most common meaning of the Hebrew word yom, many instances of yom in the Bible describe long periods. The following verses are examples of yom describing months, years, and a life (147 years) in Genesis:

It came about, when he had been there a long time [yôm], that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was caressing his wife Rebekah (Gen. 26:8).

Now after a considerable time [yôm] Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and when the time [yom] of mourning was ended, Judah went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite (Gen. 38:12).

The captain of the bodyguard put Joseph in charge of them, and he took care of them; and they were in confinement for some time [yôm] (Gen. 40:4).

Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; so the length [yôm] of Jacob’s life was one hundred and forty-seven years (Gen. 47:28).

19th century scholar Charles Hodge gave the following justification for the day-age interpretation:

"In favor of this latter view it is urged that the word day is used in Scripture in many different senses; sometimes for the time the sun is above the horizon; sometimes for a period of twenty‐four hours; sometimes for a year, as in Lev. xxv. 29, Judges xvii. 10, and often elsewhere; sometimes for an indefinite period, as in the phrases, “the day of your calamity,” “the day of salvation,” “the day of the Lord,” “the day of judgment.” And in this account of the creation it is used for the period of light in antithesis to night; for the separate periods in the progress of creation; and then, ch. ii. 4, for the whole period: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with the facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the word “day” be taken in the sense of “an indefinite period of time,” a sense that it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvelous coincidence between them." [4]

The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission allowed for the day-age interpretation.

“In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?” (Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis [June 30, 1909] [5]

The first day ends with the statement, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day." This phrase, “evening and morning,” was never used to represent a sequence of 12-hour periods in the rest of the Bible. In fact, there is no other usage of this phrase in any other ancient Near Eastern documents. In contrast "day and night" is used over 300 times in the Bible to represent the 24 hours of the day. In Hebrew, evening and morning were the transitions between day and night: twilight and daybreak. They were points in time, not periods of time. If the days represented periods during which processes of evolution took place, such as the formation of the sun, evening and morning are apt representations of the end of the processes of one day, and the beginning of the processes of the next day.

The seventh day is not followed with an evening and morning. Hugh Ross described why we are still in the seventh day.

"In Genesis 1, the descriptions of each of the first six creation days are followed by the phrase, “and there was evening, and there was morning.” However, there is no such phrase for the 7th day. The “and there was evening and there was morning” phrases for the first six creation days mean that each of those days had a definite start point and a definite endpoint. The lack of an “and there was evening and there was morning“ phrase for the seventh day implies that the seventh day is not yet finished." [6] [7]

The 19th century debate 

At the end of the 19th century, there was a long debate about the validity of the day-age interpretation. Those opposed to the day-age interpretation won the debate, at least in the academic world, and academia has since viewed the writings of Moses as mythical, or at best allegorical. This excursus revisits the 19th century arguments against the day-age interpretation of the first day. Do the arguments stand the test of time, considering the 21st century model of the formation of the sun in a dense cluster of stars?

The endorsement of Guyot and Dana by Hodge is important. Hodge is one of the most highly regarded theologians in American history.  

Based on the Laplace-Herschel nebular hypothesis of the 19th century (Section 4-2), Guyot interpreted Genesis 1:1 as the creation of an inactivated cloud of matter, and v. 2 as the description of this giant nebular cloud prior to the Spirit's activation of matter (Figure 3E-4). After the Spirit activated matter, he thought that v. 3 described the natural collapse of that cloud by gravity, and the natural formation of a giant light of the universe as energy of collapse was transferred to heat.  He thought that the separation of light from darkness was a natural process that took place as the cloud contracted. Instead of Big Bang model, which had not yet been discovered, Guyot thought that this enormous cloud filled the initially large universe that God created. Guyot thought that the cloud was composed of dark and inactivated matter (v. 2). In his interpretation, the matter was then activated by the Holy Spirit (v. 2), which led to the collapse of the cloud and formation of a giant light (v. 3). Guyot thought that the separation of light from darkness, as described in v. 4, was a natural process that took place as the cloud contracted and pulled away from the rest of space. [10] He thought that the central light then divided and formed the sun, planets, and other stars, which he conceived as the subject of the second day (right side of Figure 3E-4).

Morton argued that v. 2 could not have represented Guyot’s inactivated nebular cloud and the formation of light. His first objection was that v. 2 described actual earth and water, not inactivated matter at the beginning of the universe.

Objection 1. "Professor Dana's accommodation of the nebula theory to the cosmogony of Genesis is purchased at too high a price. It implies that in verse 2 "earth " and "waters " denote no­ thing resembling what those words expressed to the an­cient Hebrew, but matter in that unimaginable condition when it was not yet endowed with force." because v. 2 described water and earth, not some amorphous inactivated matter at the beginning of the universe." [11] 

Morton's second objection was that v. 2 only mentioned the earth and not heaven: 

Objection 2. "In the first volume (that on Genesis) of Lange's Com­mentary 1 we find the same ideas developed as to the mean­ing of the words translated "desolate," "void," and "deep," though the passage is too long for insertion here in full. I can only quote a fragment as follows: "It is clean against the text to say that the chaos, as something that is prima­rily the earth, embraces, at the same time, the heaven that exists with and for the earth. For it is very clear that the language relates to the original condition of the earth, al­though the genesis of the earth may serve by way of anal­ogy for the genesis of the universe." [12]

Objection 2 "Again, in the large work of Professor George T. Ladd, D.D., of Yale College, entitled "The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture," occurs the following: "The correspondence of the' Tohu-va-Bohu of Gen. i. 2, and the cosmogonic per­iod when the heavens and the earth were I in the condition of a gaseous fluid,' is specious. For, according to the Mo­saic Cosmogony, the heavens were made from the earth­mass which was at that time unillumined..." [13]

Morton's third objection was that he did he think that tehom (the deep) could refer to a gaseous fluid.

Objection 3. (also from Ladd) ".... and moreover the term tehom (a mass of raging waters) has no resemblance to a gaseous fluid. (This is certain from the etymology of the word C\i.,, to roar), and from its use elsewhere: compare Gen. viii. 2, 'and the waters assuaged'; Ezek. xxvi. 19, 'when I shall bring up the deep upon thee and the great waters shall cover thee'; Jonah ii. 5, 'The waters com­passed me about, even to the soul; the deep was round about me'; Ps. xlii. 7, 'deep-calleth unto deep."' [14]

Morton fourth objection was that the light of v. 3 was not “nebulae appearing as spots of faint luminosity in the otherwise dark space of heaven.” [15] Morton quoted the theologian Marcus Dods, in support of the concept that the light must have come from the sun.

Objection 4. "Any allusion, therefore, to other light than that which the sun supplies is here quite irrelevant."  [16]

Morton's fifth objection was that the earth must have begun to spin on its axis in order for there to be day and night:

Objection 5. In the volume on Genesis by the Very Rev. R. Payne Smith, D.D., belonging to the series of Commentaries for Schools, edited by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Glouces­ter and Bristol, I find 0n page 69, "God called the light Day ... Night. Before this distinction of night and day was possible there must have been outside the earth, not as yet the sun, but a bright phosphorescent mass such as now enwraps that luminary; and secondly, the earth must have begun to revolve upon its axis." [17]

A sixth 19th century objection to the day-age interpretation was that " “the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters” found no equivalent in Laplace. " [18]. There was no need for the Spirit in the Laplace-Herschel nebular hypothesis, in which clouds collapsed on their own without the aid of the Spirit. 

Did the 19th century arguments stand the test of time?

Morton's first objection to Guyot's day-age interpretation was that there was no earth or water in Guyot's inactivated cloud at the beginning on the universe. In the modern model of solar formation, the primary nongaseous material in the dark molecular cloud that formed the solar system was mineral dust encased in water ice. 

Morton's second objection was that v. 2 only included the earth-mass and not the heavens.  If the earth was nothingness, then this would imply that the earth inhabited empty space or a cloud, which would fit the definition of heavens. This cloud became the solar system, which is defined as the heavens in the second day.  

Morton's third objection was that tehom (the deep) must have referred to an ocean and to liquid water. If the earth was formless and void, then it would not have been a solid mass. Instead, it would have been dispersed in space. If the earth was mostly empty space, and this empty space also contained water, then water also floated in empty space. 

Morton's fourth objection was that day or night could not refer to some distant light out in space. He quoted Dods, who stated that the light of day must have come from the sun; however, the light is the sun in 21st century scientific model of the formation of light in a dark molecular cloud. 

Morton's fifth objection was that day and night must refer to the cycle of day and night and that the earth must be rotating on its axis. According to the Hebrew grammar, the separation of light from darkness was a physical separation, rather than a cycle of day and night. Since the sun gives the light of day, it can be named as day. 

The sixth objection was that the Spirit in v. 2 has no part of the Laplace-Herschel nebular hypothesis. Likewise, planetary systems form naturally; however, in my opinion, the likelihood that planetary systems would naturally form a habitable solar system is extremely low. I think that the Spirit was necessary to perform certain critical adjustments in the natural formation of the solar system.  

Objections 1 and 4 are directly refuted by the 21st century model of solar formation. The answer to objections 2 and 3 is that formless and void, nothingness, and in vacua support the concept that the earth floated as dust in a low-density cloud. The answer to objection 5 is that separation always describes a physical separation and never describes a cycle, such as day and night. The naming of the sun as day is reasonable. The answer to objection 6 is that the solar system would not have been habitable without the Spirit's intervention. 

Popular interpretations of Genesis 1:2-5

Many modern theologians who have a day-age interpretation interpret verse 2 as an already formed and barren earth, rather than a dark molecular cloud. They think that "let there be light" refers to the change from an opaque atmosphere that blocked the light to a translucent atmosphere that did not block the light.[19]

Young Earth creationists, who do not agree with interpretations about an old earth also think that Genesis 1:2 describes an earth globe with an ocean. People have a range of views on v. 3, ranging from the light of day one was some type of spiritual light to it was the capacity of the universe to have light.  Many people think that the separation of light from darkness refers to the cycle of day and night, and that the light, although not the sun, came from a location near the earth. Many people think that the sun was created on the fourth day. 

Many theologians think that the Genesis creation account was derived from, or speaks to, creation myths in the Ancient Near East. There are some obvious links between the first and second days and Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths. For example, Guyot described[20] an Egyptian creation myth in which there was a gradually developing God composed of four material elements: primitive matter, primitive spirit, primitive time, and primitive space. It was in the form of a ball, the primitive egg, and it was surrounded by a substance, called the Kneph, which was brooding over it. The elements within this God gradually separated into the vault of heaven and the mass of earth. There were waters above and below the vault of heaven. The transformations took place during long periods of time. Eventually the sun formed, and the earth became organized. It is not surprising that there are similarities between creation accounts in the Ancient Near East. The region is relatively small, and there was interchange between cultures. 

Table 3E-1 summarizes the different interpretations of the first day. Guyot's interpretation and the updated interpretation begin with matter in a dark cloud. The others begin with a barren earth. Those that begin with a barren earth interpret the separation of light from darkness as the day-night cycle.

Table 3E-1. Tabulated interpretations of the first day 

References

[1] Rinngren, Helmer. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament., vol. 10, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Stuttgart: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 156

[2] Hamilton, Victor. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, vol. 1 of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 119.

[3] Faber, George Stanley, A Treatise on the Genius and Object of the Patriarchal, the Levitical, and the Christian Dispensations. (Pall-Mall: C and J Rivington, 1823), 112-113.

[4] Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, (New York: Scribner Armstrong and Company, 1873), 573.

[5] Pontifical commission. De charactere historico trium priorum capitum Geneseos, Concerning the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis (June 30, 1909) [AAS 1 (1909) 567-569]

[6]  Ross, Hugh. Reasons to Believe. June 11, 2021.  Why Evening-Morning for the Genesis Creation Days? - Reasons to Believe

[7] Reasons to Believe. Report of the Creation committee. December 31, 1999. Report of the Creation Study Committee - Reasons to Believe

[8] Guyot, Arnold. Creation, the Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science. (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1884). Free in Google books.

[9] Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, (New York: Scribner Armstrong and Company, 1873), 570–571.

[10] Guyot, Cosmogony.

[11] Guyot, Cosmogony.

[12] Morton, Henry. "The Cosmogony of Genesis and its reconcilers." Part A. Bibliotheca Sacra. 54 (1897) 27. 

[13] Morton, Reconcilers.

[14] Morton, Reconcilers.

[15] Morton, Reconcilers.

[16] Morton, Reconcilers.

[17] Morton, Reconcilers.

[18] Peterson, Stephen J. "Science Versus the Bible: Debating TH Huxley." In Gladstone's Influence in America, pp. 125-150. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018.

[19] Guyot, Cosmogony.

[20] Ross, Hugh. Reasons to Believe. June 18, 2018.  Hazy Early Earth: More Affirmation of Creation Day 4 - Reasons to Believe

[21] Guyot, Cosmogony, 54-61

Banner: 

Infrared image of Pillars of creation. NASA