@@zulpha77 I believe if you watch the video again, you’ll notice Dan indicates that there are metaphorical longer period “days” in scripture, but that in this creation account day is intended to mean a literal 24 hour period.
Didn’t Augustine, interpreted the early chapters of Genesis as having both literal and figurative aspects. Augustine argued that God created the world in six days but acknowledged the presence of symbolic elements in the text. He viewed the days of creation as divine "exemplars" or logical frameworks rather than literal chronological periods.
How do you differentiate the concept or the use of numbers in the Bible (along the different books, authors and periods)? There are many cases where there is a strong poethic or symbolic value, but it is hard to me to tell when people mean to be precise, even if not was their main goal -Maybe that concern is too modern. Do you check the interpretation or use in other contemporary texts? All the best.
Dan, in ancient times, the phrase the whole world did not mean the entire globe. For example, when Ploybius said that Rome ruled the whole world, he did not mean that Rome ruled the whole work from Egypt to India to China. In the same way, when the Bible said the flood covered the whole world, the writer did not intend for the reader to imagine a flood which covered the world from Russia to China to South Africa ,
One thing I will criticize now is some of his videos tend to be too one-sided and I don’t think he always gives the other side a fair treatment and he often poisons the well, and he’s way too quick to assume peoples motives.
Another major issue with the flood, as reported in the Bible, is heat. That much water coming on Earth in that amount of time would cause a major amount of heat transfer. The physics does not backup the story of the flood.
Also the flood would have deposited a single very deep sedimentary layer that would be a blending of all the ecosystems that got pulverised to tiny bits, rather than a clearly layered sedimentary series each containing a consistent ecosystem of animals. Assuming any creatures weren't turned into flash-boiled mince meat from the insane rate of water impact, the fossils would be similarly jumbled up rather than predictably organised by layers.
Wouldn't all the weight of that much (potentially salt) water and that fast crashing on land, destroy all land based animal and plant life? Kinda like using a fire hose to water a front yard rose garden and give an dog a bath at the same time.
@@grahamjones5400 Technically speaking, assuming that the mountains of that time were around the same as the mountains of today (Everest being 8.86km above sea level), a literal interpretation of Noah's flood involves: - The flood waters rising to slightly below the cruising height of commercial aircraft (29k ft vs the standard 30k ft), which is above the "Death Zone" where the atmospheric oxygen concentration drops to 34% of what it is at sea level which typically causes brain swelling, nausea and psychosis. Admittedly it's unclear how much atmosphere would have dissolved into the new crushing ocean vs simply being displaced upwards to the new sea level, so it's fairly hard to calculate if this would have shifted the Death Zone up higher or not, but we're talking easily above the current cloud level. - It'd have taken approximately four and a half billion (4.5 x 10^9) cubic kilometres of water (NB: the atmosphere is only about 13,000km^3, so it's only 346,153.85-ish times as much water as there is air) and just one cubic km of water is approximately 1.1 billion tons. So that's about 4,950,000,000,000,000,000 tons of water over forty days. Approximately 2.8kg of water per square metre of surface area hitting per second. 168kg per minute. We can assume it'd have to fall from the Karman line or higher since clouds would be too low, so... it'd have hit terminal velocity and stopped accelerating by the time it hit, and even if it came down in one solid sheet, the pressure of the atmosphere compressing under it would shatter that sheet of water into massive water droplets so we can assume it wasn't an even impact across the whole square metre, but it definitely would have been a heated one due to that friction. The heat and exact impact forces involved aren't exactly calculable using napkin math as a result (for example, I'm not sure if that quantity of water deposition exceeds the rate at which terminal velocity could deliver that water, so it may have been under greater pressure than mere gravity when it hit). And at the final depth after the full 40 days, the old sea level would be at approximately 877.74 atmospheres or 88,837.45 kPa (1,700 kPa is usually enough to press rock into magma - so at least we know it would have been a fairly warm ocean). - It also apparently all receded away in 150 days, which is something that the first two points generally make people forget to move onto. Somehow an extradimensional drain hole removed over 346,000 times the volume of Earth's atmosphere in water from the Earth. Unclear how big of a hole that'd need, or where it'd go to, but if we were to assume this extradimensional rip were 100 square kilometres across, then the water would need to move at approximately 3.5km/s to drain out that fast. Not sure how leisurely an ark would land on a mountain when the water starts draining away that quick. Can a wooden boat survive a 3.5km/s gravel-crunch across the top a mountain-side and still hold together while catching enough on the mountain to land properly and not simply keep moving past it to gravel-crunch across the next mountain, or would it need to impact multiple mountains before coming to a stop? And how many of those impacts could an ark take? Basically, you're talking a quantity of water that no boat is going to survive getting hit with, and speeds of landing that no boat is going to survive hitting land at, and probably atmospheric issues... Nothing's surviving that. More likely the surface of the planet remains molten for thousands of years afterwards.
All day today I'm going to fit "there is only one thing that indicates we should read this metaphorically and that is just the need to read it metaphorically" in every discussion I have. 😂
True. Because to read the passage literally, and accept the simple and honest reading of the bible text, would expose that the bible authors believed in a scientific falsehood. That would mean that the bible author's viewpoint wasn't divinely inspired by an all powerful and all knowing deity. The bible author's belief in Geocentrism is revealed at Joshua 10:12-13 and Habakkuk 3:11, and was disproved by Copernicus's and Galileo's scientific calculations.
@Mdsoyabaktar God=Love Christ=Truth God begets Christ Love begets Truth Satan=God's opposite=hatred Anti-Christ=Christ's opposite=lies/falsehood Satan begets the Anti-Christ Hatred begets lies/falsehood If one loves oneself, they are Honest/TRUE TO and ABOUT oneself (Love begets Truth), and *if* one loves his neighbor AS oneself, they will, in response, be Honest/TRUE TO and ABOUT their neighbor. This is the Unity/Christ consciousness. Flip that coin to its opposite: If one *hates* oneself, one will lie TO and ABOUT oneself (hatred begets lies). In turn, if one loves their neighbor as oneself, hating oneself results in hating one's neighbor, resulting in one lying TO one's neighbor and ABOUT one's neighbor. This is known as "dual-consciousness." This is why Satan is the "Father of lies," and why the Anti-Christ is the "Son of perdition." Perdition="eternal damnation"=Satan, because Satan IS GOD'S OPPOSITE, and God IS Eternal Love (Unconditional Love).
LOL . . ."Respectfully Glass Houses" . I use that line so often particularly when I hear people in my own faith try to dub another faith as strange and I think, "You are clearly not very self-aware about some of the doctrine here or you don't realize how normalized it is for you". I tend to be an apologetic and I thoroughly enjoy be called out by some of your videos. :D
As I non-believer, I have done the same. I have repeated arguments that only satisfied me, without analizing the text and culture of those people. Dan, your content is very helpful when it comes to a true appreciation of the bible.
Christians will do anything to try to justify their blind faith. You are single-handedly dedicating your life to a book that you have no idea who actually wrote sounds crazy.
3:02 The moment you respond to a scientific error in the bible with "God did a miracle" you've completely conceded the point. If you have to invoke mysterious magic to reconcile science with your beliefs you've eschewed reality for imagination.
@@stiimuli when arguing with a Christian you understand that Christians believe God created the earth right? So if God created the earth which is a miracle in itself, why is it so far fetched to think he could perform other miracles? I’m not asking you to believe in the miracles, I’m just pointing out why Christians use the argument.
Another major scientific error in the bible is the requirement for girl children and women to bleed the first time they have sex to prove they are virgins. There is no way to tell if a female is a virgin. Especially when the bible states even a virgin can be pregnant and give birth. But biologically, most females don't bleed the first time they have sex and many women can bleed after the 100th time they have sex. Yet the bible determines whether a girl or woman lives or dies based on their ignorant and scientific error of using bleeding during the first time having sex as a standard. Their own gods are ignorant of basic human female biology.
Genesis 1 is an artistic poetical introductory summation revealing that God exists and unveiling the creation - Universe Earth Life (plants animals humans) - in a six day workweek with a seventh day rest format to set a precedent for humanity, which has basically been follow since then.
@@humanseekingtruth6080 It's two versions of the same story stitched together in order to create one narrative that attempts to create an overall chronology. I wouldn't call it 'illogical' - it's just confused. And when you say 'historical' - you don't mean to say it actually happened, do you? Because it didn't. It's a myth.
It seems like there are fundies who take the Bible literally and fundies who want certain parts of the Bible to be "metaphor," but they all just want to be right. The Bible is way more complicated!
Fascinating, I had never really considered how metaphorical readings arise from a need preserve the narrative in the face of new information. It gives me a whole new purchase in my understanding of myth, culture and creativity.
When you search/type: " Ancient Hebrew cosmology ", you can understand the thinking of the pre science bible authors when reading Genesis 1 --- They accepted Geocentrism as well, at Joshua 10:12-13 No, the bible definitely isn't a " scientific textbook "
Funnily enough, the literal meaning of yom is supposed to serve the purpose of Genesis being read as the building of a temple (in one framework at least).
So long dead saints rose from their tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. This would have been massive at the time, yet these zombies are not mentioned in secular writings.
1:25 If I'm understanding this correctly, day and night existed before the sun and the moon. They were put where they are to mark the passage of time. Does the Bible ever explain where the light was coming from?
I love these, but I do have one quibble. Genesis cannot describe a global flood, because it does not describe a global earth. I would not have a problem describing it as a universal or worldwide flood, but global flood implies a global worldview.
That's purely semantic. Dan is using "global" here in its common sense as a synonym of "worldwide," or, as the bible would put it, "over the whole earth." Whether the text considers the world as a round globe (it does not) is not at issue here. More broadly, the fact that the ancient Israelites had no concept of the true scope of the world does not lend credence to the scientific possibility of the Flood, since it is still patently impossible as it is described even if we limit its scope to the area of terrain the Israelites would have been familiar with.
@@willetheridge943 I agree it is a purely semantic quibble, but when dealing with historical linguistics semantics matter. I was not trying to justify a possible scientific explanation, just pointing out possible points of confusion. Dan seems like the kind of person to accept reasonable criticism in vocabulary choices.
Yes, it's a small quibble but I agree that dealing with these topics word choices do matter, for the point of the argument I think global get's the point across but there were better choices for sake of clarity.
2:18 Oh wow! I've never made this connection before: the 7th day of creation is also seen as the first Sabbath. Therefore the days of creation should be seen as literal days, at least by those who insist we keep the sabbath holy.
This is a point made in the book "Some Mistakes of Moses" and it's a really good point. How then were Jews supposed to keep a 7Th metaphorical day representing millions of years holy?
Dan I would love if you could address the current "alien" situation and any chapters or verses that may confirm or be contra to the idea of alien life. I have quite a few friends on both sides of the aisle religiously who are now speaking about the Bible in the context of now "knowing" that alien life exists
I love that the Proton Psalm was a revelation of the crowning of Christ. The proton draws me, the electon, with cords of love. The mercy seat is his throne and we are drawn through 3 courts of similar size, although the doorways get more narrow. The "wicked" are those who want to cut the cords "asunder." In each shell we gain more light. Our circle of love grows larger. Our faith grows stronger. Ultimately, we can know God.
The Biblical text and context explain that waters from below the earth’s surface came up, the “waters above” came down, and the first rainfall happened.
Maimonides, writing around the 12th century, wrote that if natural philosophy should show the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is wrong, it would be necessary to understand it some other way.
I was that dude. I subscribed to and bought books about how Princeton once was a bastion of godliness, but late 1800s became akin to an instrument of the devil. No, they were adjusting to a rapid increased body of knowledge from science - and looking at the bible with informed eyes. Something I refused to do in the name of “faithfulness” until recently.
There is one argument you didn't address within the first 2 and a half minutes that they'd likely try to use to counter you, and that's the "A thousand years as one day" idea from Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. Haven't seen the rest of video yet.
Dan, you mention "multiple estimates have been done" about the quantity of water required to flood the earth Do you have a video explaining your sources for these estimates?
Regarding the flood, some argue that the earth back then had rings around it similar to Saturn and full of watering the form of ice. Then melted resulting in the flood. And also that the first rain was during Noah's flood and before plants grew due to an abundance of water, more so than now, under the earth or the land which rose up as dew on the ground but which, for the flood, God unlocked, so to speak, from underneath to the surface.
In chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis there are varying examples of how God made the world. He makes with both His hands, and He speaks, and in chapter 1 to 2 the order of events changes slightly. This shows that it is a metaphor.
Reminds me of a show about the scientific evidence for a Young Earth. I stopped watching after 10 minutes when the person stated 'well physical laws were just different before the flood'.
Dan is also perfectly aware of the lack of the definite article in gensis 1.1 indicating that the heavens and earth were already existing prior to gods first creation period. He is also aware that ancient isrealites most likely did not beleive in creation ex nihilo
The Contextual Argument What about context? Context is king for interpretation. Context always dictates word meaning. So what is the right context for reading the flood account? Many (oddly) think Gen 1:1-3 is the context for the flood account. But why? There’s a better one - and one that is pretty explicit. A regional flood theorist would direct you to Genesis 10 as the context for the flood account asking, What is “the world” to the biblical writer? Answer: Genesis 10. That chapter lists out all the nations descended from Noah’s sons. They cover only the Mediterranean and ancient Near East. There is no knowledge of Australia, China, Japan, North America, South America, etc. Hence they would take the language of Gen 6-8 and simply argue that, to the writer, the account covered all the known land masses, but the real-time event wasn’t global. They would then take you to “all the earth” in Gen 9:19. Look at it carefully: “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.” Since the sons of Noah produced all the nations of Genesis 10, and those nations do not represent the totality of the globe, Genesis 10 = “the whole earth.” The point is the phrase “all the earth” is getting defined in this verse as the places populated by the descendants of the sons of Noah. Those places are listed in Genesis 10, and that very obviously don’t add up to the entire planet. The contextual argument helps the local-regional theorist to parse phrases like “the whole heaven.” They’d ask the obvious question: Did Noah see the sky over Australia? North America? Or just as far as the eye could see - covering tens of thousands of square miles? A local-regional theorist would point out that a flood of that magnitude (hundreds of thousands, even millions of square miles - but not the entire globe) is unprecedented and accounts for the language and the real-time experience of Noah. The lesson here is that those who prefer a global flood reading of Gen 6-8 need to avoid calling those who don’t “unbiblical” in their position, or arguing “from science against the Bible” when taking a local-regional view. The above has nothing to do with science. It’s a text-based approach. So, if we’re going to argue about the biblical account of the flood, let’s do that from the text, not personal attacks.
@@ramadadiver8112 Genesis is framed 100 percent, and I can demonstrate this through interpretation, on first, one template of human life cycle. Creation to Noah being called for flood. Secondly, Noah is the first called in a series of non stop monomyths and pieces of monomyths strung together, created in their day for the population. Noah is first called, then Abram and so one. Abram and Sarai in Egypt are precursor stories to Exodus. (And read as historical messes) They are analogous verbiage carrying nested templates. All religions and myth do that.
The question (among who believe) has never been, is the 6 day figure accurate. The question has always been; can the 4000 year figure between Creation and the end of BCE, be considered in any way "reliable"?
In the case if Genesis 1, it is patently wrong to claim that these texts were universally interpreted in a literal fashion until our knowledge of the natural world forced us to "renegotiate" with them. Cf. Augustine and Origen.
How can you claim the bible absolutely affirms a global flood when the author(s?) of genesis had no concept or understanding that the earth was a globe?
I’m using “global” to mean the entire earth, just like I use global in editing to refer to the entire document, not to assert a spherical conceptualization of the document.
I am afraid I will argue that the only thing that indicates we should read this literally, is the need to read it literally... biblical meaning of yom: "time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3); epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31)
How did King Saul die? Which of the 4 verses is the real one? 1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. 2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite. 2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa. 1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God. Remember God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corin 14:33 1 Peter 3:15 says always give an answer. 1 Thess 5:21 says prove all things
Well, a scientific error requires you to be attempting the scientific method, so... not _scientific_ errors per se, so much as just factual inaccuracies. Also science is well known for its use of metaphor and allegory instead of clear data harvesting and analysis, so that's a great defense of the Bible's scientific accuracy right there. Same with the argument for a "lack of cultural understanding" - as we all know, consistency with observable reality is obviously dependent on the local adages and aphorisms people use (even though it's worth pointing out... those people had poppy seeds at the time, so...). But you know, taking that larger view it's almost like the point of the Bible _wasn't_ consistency with observable reality, it was a tool of cultural organisation, and when apologists accept that instead of trying to claim every corner of the room as theirs they might wind up being happier people and in less conflict with reality.
I like the first part of the video with the rebuttal about not using the word day overly metaphorically, but as good as Dan is, there are still others who defend the word Day as not necessarily to always use it as a 24 hour period, if you keep searching long enough, but what a lot of people don't realize is that the ''fountains of the deep'' passage from Genesis was probably referring to was not water on the earth that was visible, but was instead water that was hidden in the middle pocket of the earth which has only been recently discovered, and this water is enormous, potentially even greater than the volume of the water in the oceans, ua-cam.com/video/yemSIWmjvZU/v-deo.html
5:49 How do you reconcile your claims here with the fact many of the Church Fathers read these stories non literally, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, etc.
On my understanding of a literal interpretation of scripture is that it is in context to the literal world view of that time. The Bible is not written for a 21st century western culture. It was written for its contemporaries at the time in their cultural contexts. I disagree with the point that the days of creation are intended to be 24 hours as we know it. As was already pointed out, the sun and the moon are indicators that it is 24 hours and set that precedent continuing on in the creation account; but the sun and moon only were created on day 4. So the precedent was not established until day 4, if it is meant to be a literal 24 hour interpretation. “Yom” means a long non-specific era of time also. Which even by the Biblical account fits. Also, all creation days are capped off with a beginning and end to transition to the next creation day. (Which is likely more accurately described as creation “phase”) Yet the seventh creation day has a beginning, but is not capped off with an end. So it could indicate we are still in the seventh creation phase. Meaning that God has just stopped creating new things. Life is now self sustaining. Another indication of a long creation period is the time it needs to take for Adam to observe and name every creature. Obviously that can’t be done in only 24 hours. Adam likely lived a long life alone, before the creation of Eve. As for the flood account. It is again literal according to the worldview of that time. Not ours. A regional flood even spanning 1000 km is the whole world in an ancient view, before long distance travel is possible. We’re talking of an age where people only knew travel by foot here. There is no record that early of even travel by horseback. Boat was probably the most advanced they got and that just took them across the Mediterranean. The region around what is now Turkey all the way down south to Syria, Jordan and Israel/Palestine. The world as was known by the people of that time. There is geological evidence of a regional flood in that area that covers that distance in ancient times. The Sumerian Kings list also references that regional flood specifically. The animals on the ark were important for the use of that time for sacrifice and to reproduce after so the habitat can be re-established in the region. Which also lead to the acceptance of meat eating, as no crop could yet be produced as the irrigation of land could not yet occur immediately. All of the requirements for what came into the ark would have had to be specific to the region and it’s ability to revitalize again.
Explain this one. God said the earth has edges, and the earth is shaped like clay stamp under a seal (not spherical). Did God think the earth is flat? Job 38:12-18 New International Version 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
@@brettmajeske3525 It's not. Even if it claimed to be the infallible word of god, that wouldn't mean it is. The entire book was written by primitive people pretending to speak for God. That's why is full of lies, moral atrocities, failed profecy, and absurd scientific inaccuracies. Yes, the book of job is supposed to be god speaking to job. Have you read the Bible?
God never said the earth has edges. The NIV translators said that the author of Job 38:13 said that the earth has edges. The NRSV and ESV translators said that the author of Job 38:13 said that the earth had "skirts" that would be shaken out. The translators of most other English language bibles said that the author of Job 38:13 said the "ends" of the earth would be held as the earth was shaken. Two lessons to learn here: God didn't write the bible, and translation is not an exact science.
How in the world do people think you can read the entire creation of the universe in a dozen lines of ancient poetry. Literal eons turn on the interpretation of a word.
Strange how Biblical errancy is followed until the believer in inerrancy will discard it to simply state "the purpose of the Bible is to save people..." hmm
Shepards of the Iron Age would not know geography, science, psychology, or anything else that many people living today would consider elementary school training. When you spend your entire life living and dying within a ten-mile radius, any flood is a worldwide phenomenon. All they would know back then is a day is when the sun comes out and night is when darkness comes. They would have no knowledge that it is a measure of the rotation of a planet around the sun and that it can vary from a few hours to a year all according to which planet. One day, a translation of the Bible may include, "In the beginning all that was to be, was gathered at one point in time and space and the Lord said, "let it be." And the matter exploded and was distributed throughout space..." Hopefully contradictions, prehistoric concepts, and misogyny will be in lesser amounts in the next translation.
yeah but, is 1 'yom' the same for God prior to forming 'any' Earth? Lets do elaborate mental gymnastics: 1 galactic/cosmic year, is ~230 million Earth years. Its the duration of time for the Sun to orbit the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. SO HOW LONG IS ONE GALACTIC DAY (AKA a galactic tick) and how long is ONE UNIVERSAL DAY and how long is ONE OF GOD'S DAYS?
NB: Pointing out yom is a literal 24-hour period is not asserting the broader account does not have a primarily liturgical or literary function.
Dan how do you explain day as periods in Moses and Abraham
@@zulpha77 I believe if you watch the video again, you’ll notice Dan indicates that there are metaphorical longer period “days” in scripture, but that in this creation account day is intended to mean a literal 24 hour period.
Didn’t Augustine, interpreted the early chapters of Genesis as having both literal and figurative aspects. Augustine argued that God created the world in six days but acknowledged the presence of symbolic elements in the text. He viewed the days of creation as divine "exemplars" or logical frameworks rather than literal chronological periods.
How do you differentiate the concept or the use of numbers in the Bible (along the different books, authors and periods)? There are many cases where there is a strong poethic or symbolic value, but it is hard to me to tell when people mean to be precise, even if not was their main goal -Maybe that concern is too modern. Do you check the interpretation or use in other contemporary texts?
All the best.
Dan, in ancient times, the phrase the whole world did not mean the entire globe. For example, when Ploybius said that Rome ruled the whole world, he did not mean that Rome ruled the whole work from Egypt to India to China. In the same way, when the Bible said the flood covered the whole world, the writer did not intend for the reader to imagine a flood which covered the world from Russia to China to South Africa ,
I love the way you manage to combine subtle humor with education in your videos. We need more channels like this one.
Yes, Dan is very droll. I love that sort of understated humour.
One thing I will criticize now is some of his videos tend to be too one-sided and I don’t think he always gives the other side a fair treatment and he often poisons the well, and he’s way too quick to assume peoples motives.
Another major issue with the flood, as reported in the Bible, is heat. That much water coming on Earth in that amount of time would cause a major amount of heat transfer. The physics does not backup the story of the flood.
And geologic issues. Floods leave lots of evidence
And pressure similar to how it exists on the bottom of the ocean
Also the flood would have deposited a single very deep sedimentary layer that would be a blending of all the ecosystems that got pulverised to tiny bits, rather than a clearly layered sedimentary series each containing a consistent ecosystem of animals. Assuming any creatures weren't turned into flash-boiled mince meat from the insane rate of water impact, the fossils would be similarly jumbled up rather than predictably organised by layers.
Wouldn't all the weight of that much (potentially salt) water and that fast crashing on land, destroy all land based animal and plant life?
Kinda like using a fire hose to water a front yard rose garden and give an dog a bath at the same time.
@@grahamjones5400 Technically speaking, assuming that the mountains of that time were around the same as the mountains of today (Everest being 8.86km above sea level), a literal interpretation of Noah's flood involves:
- The flood waters rising to slightly below the cruising height of commercial aircraft (29k ft vs the standard 30k ft), which is above the "Death Zone" where the atmospheric oxygen concentration drops to 34% of what it is at sea level which typically causes brain swelling, nausea and psychosis. Admittedly it's unclear how much atmosphere would have dissolved into the new crushing ocean vs simply being displaced upwards to the new sea level, so it's fairly hard to calculate if this would have shifted the Death Zone up higher or not, but we're talking easily above the current cloud level.
- It'd have taken approximately four and a half billion (4.5 x 10^9) cubic kilometres of water (NB: the atmosphere is only about 13,000km^3, so it's only 346,153.85-ish times as much water as there is air) and just one cubic km of water is approximately 1.1 billion tons. So that's about 4,950,000,000,000,000,000 tons of water over forty days. Approximately 2.8kg of water per square metre of surface area hitting per second. 168kg per minute. We can assume it'd have to fall from the Karman line or higher since clouds would be too low, so... it'd have hit terminal velocity and stopped accelerating by the time it hit, and even if it came down in one solid sheet, the pressure of the atmosphere compressing under it would shatter that sheet of water into massive water droplets so we can assume it wasn't an even impact across the whole square metre, but it definitely would have been a heated one due to that friction. The heat and exact impact forces involved aren't exactly calculable using napkin math as a result (for example, I'm not sure if that quantity of water deposition exceeds the rate at which terminal velocity could deliver that water, so it may have been under greater pressure than mere gravity when it hit). And at the final depth after the full 40 days, the old sea level would be at approximately 877.74 atmospheres or 88,837.45 kPa (1,700 kPa is usually enough to press rock into magma - so at least we know it would have been a fairly warm ocean).
- It also apparently all receded away in 150 days, which is something that the first two points generally make people forget to move onto. Somehow an extradimensional drain hole removed over 346,000 times the volume of Earth's atmosphere in water from the Earth. Unclear how big of a hole that'd need, or where it'd go to, but if we were to assume this extradimensional rip were 100 square kilometres across, then the water would need to move at approximately 3.5km/s to drain out that fast. Not sure how leisurely an ark would land on a mountain when the water starts draining away that quick. Can a wooden boat survive a 3.5km/s gravel-crunch across the top a mountain-side and still hold together while catching enough on the mountain to land properly and not simply keep moving past it to gravel-crunch across the next mountain, or would it need to impact multiple mountains before coming to a stop? And how many of those impacts could an ark take?
Basically, you're talking a quantity of water that no boat is going to survive getting hit with, and speeds of landing that no boat is going to survive hitting land at, and probably atmospheric issues... Nothing's surviving that. More likely the surface of the planet remains molten for thousands of years afterwards.
I love you correcting “hear it” vs “see it” 😂 you give me faith in people everyday
Evidence of how easy it is to corrupt an oral OR written narrative
@@SoyebAkhtar25 umm…huh? This is nonsense and meaningless to anyone who isn’t a religious zealot
All day today I'm going to fit "there is only one thing that indicates we should read this metaphorically and that is just the need to read it metaphorically" in every discussion I have. 😂
This was my favorite line from this video.
True. Because to read the passage literally, and accept the simple and honest reading of the bible text, would expose that the bible authors believed in a scientific falsehood.
That would mean that the bible author's viewpoint wasn't divinely inspired by an all powerful and all knowing deity.
The bible author's belief in Geocentrism is revealed at Joshua 10:12-13 and Habakkuk 3:11, and was disproved by Copernicus's and Galileo's scientific calculations.
@Mdsoyabaktar God=Love
Christ=Truth
God begets Christ
Love begets Truth
Satan=God's opposite=hatred
Anti-Christ=Christ's opposite=lies/falsehood
Satan begets the Anti-Christ
Hatred begets lies/falsehood
If one loves oneself, they are Honest/TRUE TO and ABOUT oneself (Love begets Truth), and *if* one loves his neighbor AS oneself, they will, in response, be Honest/TRUE TO and ABOUT their neighbor. This is the Unity/Christ consciousness.
Flip that coin to its opposite:
If one *hates* oneself, one will lie TO and ABOUT oneself (hatred begets lies). In turn, if one loves their neighbor as oneself, hating oneself results in hating one's neighbor, resulting in one lying TO one's neighbor and ABOUT one's neighbor. This is known as "dual-consciousness."
This is why Satan is the "Father of lies," and why the Anti-Christ is the "Son of perdition." Perdition="eternal damnation"=Satan, because Satan IS GOD'S OPPOSITE, and God IS Eternal Love (Unconditional Love).
@joshuacromley7439 How did you arrive at "anointed one = truth"? Show your work.
@@TheMesomovie "I am the way, the truth..."
LOL . . ."Respectfully Glass Houses" . I use that line so often particularly when I hear people in my own faith try to dub another faith as strange and I think, "You are clearly not very self-aware about some of the doctrine here or you don't realize how normalized it is for you". I tend to be an apologetic and I thoroughly enjoy be called out by some of your videos. :D
As I non-believer, I have done the same. I have repeated arguments that only satisfied me, without analizing the text and culture of those people. Dan, your content is very helpful when it comes to a true appreciation of the bible.
Christians will do anything to try to justify their blind faith. You are single-handedly dedicating your life to a book that you have no idea who actually wrote sounds crazy.
3:02 The moment you respond to a scientific error in the bible with "God did a miracle" you've completely conceded the point.
If you have to invoke mysterious magic to reconcile science with your beliefs you've eschewed reality for imagination.
@@SoyebAkhtar25 Now demonstrate any of that is actually true rather than just more stories from yet another religious text.
@@SoyebAkhtar25 no Islam is a faith to make prisoners of men and assure there will never be peace on earth. Truly evil religion
If God is real then any miracle is possible. What don’t you understand about this?
@@Lilhaggis747 You're joking, tight? That has to be a joke.
@@stiimuli when arguing with a Christian you understand that Christians believe God created the earth right? So if God created the earth which is a miracle in itself, why is it so far fetched to think he could perform other miracles? I’m not asking you to believe in the miracles, I’m just pointing out why Christians use the argument.
Another major scientific error in the bible is the requirement for girl children and women to bleed the first time they have sex to prove they are virgins.
There is no way to tell if a female is a virgin. Especially when the bible states even a virgin can be pregnant and give birth. But biologically, most females don't bleed the first time they have sex and many women can bleed after the 100th time they have sex.
Yet the bible determines whether a girl or woman lives or dies based on their ignorant and scientific error of using bleeding during the first time having sex as a standard. Their own gods are ignorant of basic human female biology.
"Respectfully, glass houses" ---> Made me laugh out loud!!!
I’m not an native English speaker and I didn’t get it. Would you help me?
@@agustinthierry6719 The idiom is, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
@@Trillian4T2 there it was, thank you very much!!
“Respectfully, glass houses,” mic drop! 😂
oh man - I'm so glad you made this. I have been frustrated by Christians trying to rationalise what is meant by 'day' for so long.
Genesis 1 is an artistic poetical introductory summation revealing that God exists and unveiling the creation - Universe Earth Life (plants animals humans) - in a six day workweek with a seventh day rest format to set a precedent for humanity, which has basically been follow since then.
Genesis 2 is a chronologically ordered Creation, that explains the historical account of what happened.
I’m tired of atheists trying to claim it does not make sense
I’m tired of people claiming it is illogical
@@humanseekingtruth6080
It's two versions of the same story stitched together in order to create one narrative that attempts to create an overall chronology. I wouldn't call it 'illogical' - it's just confused.
And when you say 'historical' - you don't mean to say it actually happened, do you? Because it didn't. It's a myth.
Came for the fantastic scholarship, stayed for Lobo.
It seems like there are fundies who take the Bible literally and fundies who want certain parts of the Bible to be "metaphor," but they all just want to be right. The Bible is way more complicated!
Great vid as always. But need a presentation of t-shirt of the day in the videos.
I like how the ancients imagined gates in the heavens. My favorite are the double gates with tether for each god to open for the Sky Bull.
Y our ending, “Glass houses,” is masterful. Thank you.
Fascinating, I had never really considered how metaphorical readings arise from a need preserve the narrative in the face of new information. It gives me a whole new purchase in my understanding of myth, culture and creativity.
“And it is not going well” made me lol
Great content!
When you search/type: " Ancient Hebrew cosmology ", you can understand the thinking of the pre science bible authors when reading Genesis 1
--- They accepted Geocentrism as well, at Joshua 10:12-13
No, the bible definitely isn't a " scientific textbook "
Funnily enough, the literal meaning of yom is supposed to serve the purpose of Genesis being read as the building of a temple (in one framework at least).
If you squint your eyes really hard after a while any religious text said whatever you what and whatever fits you the most. 😂😂😂
"Alright, let's *SEE* it!" 😂
Love it and the Lobo T! Where did you nab that one?! Thank you.
So long dead saints rose from their tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. This would have been massive at the time, yet these zombies are not mentioned in secular writings.
The Bible does not mention zombies either, so you are spreading falsehoods
Yea funny how that is. And yet most people in the city at that time were not Christians
Brutal. I love these shorts.
1:25 If I'm understanding this correctly, day and night existed before the sun and the moon. They were put where they are to mark the passage of time. Does the Bible ever explain where the light was coming from?
I love these, but I do have one quibble. Genesis cannot describe a global flood, because it does not describe a global earth. I would not have a problem describing it as a universal or worldwide flood, but global flood implies a global worldview.
That's purely semantic. Dan is using "global" here in its common sense as a synonym of "worldwide," or, as the bible would put it, "over the whole earth." Whether the text considers the world as a round globe (it does not) is not at issue here.
More broadly, the fact that the ancient Israelites had no concept of the true scope of the world does not lend credence to the scientific possibility of the Flood, since it is still patently impossible as it is described even if we limit its scope to the area of terrain the Israelites would have been familiar with.
@@willetheridge943 I agree it is a purely semantic quibble, but when dealing with historical linguistics semantics matter. I was not trying to justify a possible scientific explanation, just pointing out possible points of confusion. Dan seems like the kind of person to accept reasonable criticism in vocabulary choices.
Yes, it's a small quibble but I agree that dealing with these topics word choices do matter, for the point of the argument I think global get's the point across but there were better choices for sake of clarity.
Black Sea
This was great! 😊
Metaphor is the religious mental gymnast alibi to deny confronting ignorance 😁🤣🤣
every time science disprove the bible they have to scramble to claim more stuff is metaphorical or does not contradict.
1 day to the Lord, is a 1000yrs to man..
Respectfully Dan. Sometimes your videos keep me up way past bedtime
2:18 Oh wow! I've never made this connection before: the 7th day of creation is also seen as the first Sabbath. Therefore the days of creation should be seen as literal days, at least by those who insist we keep the sabbath holy.
This is a point made in the book "Some Mistakes of Moses" and it's a really good point. How then were Jews supposed to keep a 7Th metaphorical day representing millions of years holy?
That mic drop at the end, dayum.
That ending - "Respectfully, glass houses" - sound you hear is audio feedback from the mic-drop....
Dan I would love if you could address the current "alien" situation and any chapters or verses that may confirm or be contra to the idea of alien life. I have quite a few friends on both sides of the aisle religiously who are now speaking about the Bible in the context of now "knowing" that alien life exists
I love that the Proton Psalm was a revelation of the crowning of Christ. The proton draws me, the electon, with cords of love. The mercy seat is his throne and we are drawn through 3 courts of similar size, although the doorways get more narrow. The "wicked" are those who want to cut the cords "asunder." In each shell we gain more light. Our circle of love grows larger. Our faith grows stronger. Ultimately, we can know God.
The Biblical text and context explain that waters from below the earth’s surface came up, the “waters above” came down, and the first rainfall happened.
Wrong. It says the windows of the dome opened.
6:10 Did he mean empiricism? Honest question no harm directed. Love the channel
Is there any manuscripts that start at Genesis 2 ? Do we have a reference for an earlier work as an preistly account genesis 1 ?
0:49 "The only thing that points in the direction of metaphor..."
It is a good day when an error in judgement is corrected. Thank you.
Does Joshua asking God to make the sun stand still, as recounted in Joshua 10, reflect a scientific error in the Bible?
I cannot WAIT for the OP to get ultra defensive and call Dan "lil bro" again
Maimonides, writing around the 12th century, wrote that if natural philosophy should show the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is wrong, it would be necessary to understand it some other way.
I was that dude. I subscribed to and bought books about how Princeton once was a bastion of godliness, but late 1800s became akin to an instrument of the devil.
No, they were adjusting to a rapid increased body of knowledge from science - and looking at the bible with informed eyes. Something I refused to do in the name of “faithfulness” until recently.
How does coincides with hugh ross and his interpretation of day?
Here is why earth was not created in 6 literal days: ua-cam.com/video/CwaC4ovGyh8/v-deo.html
Bro says it's all scientific and then immediately appeals to miracles lmao
There is one argument you didn't address within the first 2 and a half minutes that they'd likely try to use to counter you, and that's the "A thousand years as one day" idea from Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. Haven't seen the rest of video yet.
Dan, you mention "multiple estimates have been done" about the quantity of water required to flood the earth Do you have a video explaining your sources for these estimates?
Dr. McClellan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a Lobo shirt?
I thought the Gen 1 story was a poem and not meant to be taken literally?
Regarding the flood, some argue that the earth back then had rings around it similar to Saturn and full of watering the form of ice. Then melted resulting in the flood. And also that the first rain was during Noah's flood and before plants grew due to an abundance of water, more so than now, under the earth or the land which rose up as dew on the ground but which, for the flood, God unlocked, so to speak, from underneath to the surface.
How much salt have you had to throw away because it has lost it's taste?
In chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis there are varying examples of how God made the world. He makes with both His hands, and He speaks, and in chapter 1 to 2 the order of events changes slightly. This shows that it is a metaphor.
Oh yeah 😂
"Glass houses"
Reminds me of a show about the scientific evidence for a Young Earth. I stopped watching after 10 minutes when the person stated 'well physical laws were just different before the flood'.
Perfectly said!
Love this 😂😂😂
Dan is also perfectly aware of the lack of the definite article in gensis 1.1 indicating that the heavens and earth were already existing prior to gods first creation period. He is also aware that ancient isrealites most likely did not beleive in creation ex nihilo
The Contextual Argument
What about context? Context is king for interpretation. Context always dictates word meaning. So what is the right context for reading the flood account? Many (oddly) think Gen 1:1-3 is the context for the flood account. But why? There’s a better one - and one that is pretty explicit.
A regional flood theorist would direct you to Genesis 10 as the context for the flood account asking, What is “the world” to the biblical writer? Answer: Genesis 10. That chapter lists out all the nations descended from Noah’s sons. They cover only the Mediterranean and ancient Near East. There is no knowledge of Australia, China, Japan, North America, South America, etc. Hence they would take the language of Gen 6-8 and simply argue that, to the writer, the account covered all the known land masses, but the real-time event wasn’t global.
They would then take you to “all the earth” in Gen 9:19. Look at it carefully: “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.”
Since the sons of Noah produced all the nations of Genesis 10, and those nations do not represent the totality of the globe, Genesis 10 = “the whole earth.” The point is the phrase “all the earth” is getting defined in this verse as the places populated by the descendants of the sons of Noah. Those places are listed in Genesis 10, and that very obviously don’t add up to the entire planet.
The contextual argument helps the local-regional theorist to parse phrases like “the whole heaven.” They’d ask the obvious question: Did Noah see the sky over Australia? North America? Or just as far as the eye could see - covering tens of thousands of square miles? A local-regional theorist would point out that a flood of that magnitude (hundreds of thousands, even millions of square miles - but not the entire globe) is unprecedented and accounts for the language and the real-time experience of Noah.
The lesson here is that those who prefer a global flood reading of Gen 6-8 need to avoid calling those who don’t “unbiblical” in their position, or arguing “from science against the Bible” when taking a local-regional view. The above has nothing to do with science. It’s a text-based approach. So, if we’re going to argue about the biblical account of the flood, let’s do that from the text, not personal attacks.
@@ramadadiver8112 Genesis is framed 100 percent, and I can demonstrate this through interpretation, on first, one template of human life cycle. Creation to Noah being called for flood. Secondly, Noah is the first called in a series of non stop monomyths and pieces of monomyths strung together, created in their day for the population. Noah is first called, then Abram and so one.
Abram and Sarai in Egypt are precursor stories to Exodus. (And read as historical messes) They are analogous verbiage carrying nested templates. All religions and myth do that.
Master Chef McClellan cooking 🍳🔥🔥
You're not just shooting fish in a barrel, you're shooting fish in a barrel with a bazooka.
"Trees in 24 hours"
I'm hoping he thinks that Eve from Adam's rib is a metaphor and adam naming all the animals took years.
Genesis 2 is a chronologically ordered Creation, that explains the historical account of what happened.
No it doesn’t.
The question (among who believe) has never been, is the 6 day figure accurate. The question has always been; can the 4000 year figure between Creation and the end of BCE, be considered in any way "reliable"?
Not saying this for any particular reason but notice the 7th day has no evening or morning
For the next person making bible videos please say "Let's smell it".
In the case if Genesis 1, it is patently wrong to claim that these texts were universally interpreted in a literal fashion until our knowledge of the natural world forced us to "renegotiate" with them. Cf. Augustine and Origen.
Oh no.... Let's ___ It -ception! :O
Missed the ad hominem attack, but after the "garbage" comments back and forth, I can live with that.
He skipped an easy one: according to the bible the earth predates the sun and stars.
How can you claim the bible absolutely affirms a global flood when the author(s?) of genesis had no concept or understanding that the earth was a globe?
A circular flood.
I’m using “global” to mean the entire earth, just like I use global in editing to refer to the entire document, not to assert a spherical conceptualization of the document.
They didn't think that they were wrong..
Dan the man!
I am afraid I will argue that the only thing that indicates we should read this literally, is the need to read it literally...
biblical meaning of yom:
"time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3); epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31)
How did King Saul die? Which of the 4 verses is the real one?
1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
Remember God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corin 14:33
1 Peter 3:15 says always give an answer.
1 Thess 5:21 says prove all things
Well, a scientific error requires you to be attempting the scientific method, so... not _scientific_ errors per se, so much as just factual inaccuracies. Also science is well known for its use of metaphor and allegory instead of clear data harvesting and analysis, so that's a great defense of the Bible's scientific accuracy right there. Same with the argument for a "lack of cultural understanding" - as we all know, consistency with observable reality is obviously dependent on the local adages and aphorisms people use (even though it's worth pointing out... those people had poppy seeds at the time, so...).
But you know, taking that larger view it's almost like the point of the Bible _wasn't_ consistency with observable reality, it was a tool of cultural organisation, and when apologists accept that instead of trying to claim every corner of the room as theirs they might wind up being happier people and in less conflict with reality.
Glass Houses...
God's (Elohim) day in Genesis 1 may have been a 24 hour day but the LORD's day in Genesis 2:17 lasted 930 years.
How many scientific errors are there in the Bible?
How much bread is in a loaf of bread.
🤘
I like the first part of the video with the rebuttal about not using the word day overly metaphorically, but as good as Dan is, there are still others who defend the word
Day as not necessarily to always use it as a 24 hour period, if you keep searching long enough, but what a lot of people don't realize is that the ''fountains of the deep''
passage from Genesis was probably referring to was not water on the earth that was visible, but was instead water that was hidden in the middle pocket of the earth
which has only been recently discovered, and this water is enormous, potentially even greater than the volume of the water in the oceans,
ua-cam.com/video/yemSIWmjvZU/v-deo.html
The story is simply a myth invented by people with no cosmological knowledge.
There are no 'scientific ' claims in the bibl. The premise is invalid.
Yes...yes and yes
Recursive explains things in its own terms
I never take Bible advice from someone on video in pajamas.
what do you think of Jehovah`s Witnesses claiming they are the only true Religion
✌️
5:49 How do you reconcile your claims here with the fact many of the Church Fathers read these stories non literally, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, etc.
I think the easier list is the "Scientific facts" that are in the Bible...
On my understanding of a literal interpretation of scripture is that it is in context to the literal world view of that time. The Bible is not written for a 21st century western culture. It was written for its contemporaries at the time in their cultural contexts.
I disagree with the point that the days of creation are intended to be 24 hours as we know it. As was already pointed out, the sun and the moon are indicators that it is 24 hours and set that precedent continuing on in the creation account; but the sun and moon only were created on day 4. So the precedent was not established until day 4, if it is meant to be a literal 24 hour interpretation. “Yom” means a long non-specific era of time also. Which even by the Biblical account fits. Also, all creation days are capped off with a beginning and end to transition to the next creation day. (Which is likely more accurately described as creation “phase”) Yet the seventh creation day has a beginning, but is not capped off with an end. So it could indicate we are still in the seventh creation phase. Meaning that God has just stopped creating new things. Life is now self sustaining. Another indication of a long creation period is the time it needs to take for Adam to observe and name every creature. Obviously that can’t be done in only 24 hours. Adam likely lived a long life alone, before the creation of Eve.
As for the flood account. It is again literal according to the worldview of that time. Not ours. A regional flood even spanning 1000 km is the whole world in an ancient view, before long distance travel is possible. We’re talking of an age where people only knew travel by foot here. There is no record that early of even travel by horseback. Boat was probably the most advanced they got and that just took them across the Mediterranean. The region around what is now Turkey all the way down south to Syria, Jordan and Israel/Palestine. The world as was known by the people of that time. There is geological evidence of a regional flood in that area that covers that distance in ancient times. The Sumerian Kings list also references that regional flood specifically. The animals on the ark were important for the use of that time for sacrifice and to reproduce after so the habitat can be re-established in the region. Which also lead to the acceptance of meat eating, as no crop could yet be produced as the irrigation of land could not yet occur immediately. All of the requirements for what came into the ark would have had to be specific to the region and it’s ability to revitalize again.
Explain this one. God said the earth has edges, and the earth is shaped like clay stamp under a seal (not spherical). Did God think the earth is flat?
Job 38:12-18
New International Version
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
The biblical authors certainly did.
Wherein does the Book of Job claim "God" to be the author?
@@brettmajeske3525 It's not. Even if it claimed to be the infallible word of god, that wouldn't mean it is. The entire book was written by primitive people pretending to speak for God. That's why is full of lies, moral atrocities, failed profecy, and absurd scientific inaccuracies. Yes, the book of job is supposed to be god speaking to job. Have you read the Bible?
@@maklelan exactly. It was written by men pretending to speak for God. It's obvious
God never said the earth has edges. The NIV translators said that the author of Job 38:13 said that the earth has edges.
The NRSV and ESV translators said that the author of Job 38:13 said that the earth had "skirts" that would be shaken out.
The translators of most other English language bibles said that the author of Job 38:13 said the "ends" of the earth would be held as the earth was shaken.
Two lessons to learn here: God didn't write the bible, and translation is not an exact science.
How in the world do people think you can read the entire creation of the universe in a dozen lines of ancient poetry. Literal eons turn on the interpretation of a word.
Christian “Context!”
What they are really saying is you are not applying my Christian worldview as the context to reading the Bible.
Strange how Biblical errancy is followed until the believer in inerrancy will discard it to simply state "the purpose of the Bible is to save people..." hmm
Does Dan not realize that early Jews and Christians read the creation account non-literally long before the YEC?
Genesis doesn't even make sense as a metaphor. It is obvious that whoever wrote it had no idea how the earth was created.
Wel...if it wasn't scientific to begin with......
Shepards of the Iron Age would not know geography, science, psychology, or anything else that many people living today would consider elementary school training. When you spend your entire life living and dying within a ten-mile radius, any flood is a worldwide phenomenon. All they would know back then is a day is when the sun comes out and night is when darkness comes. They would have no knowledge that it is a measure of the rotation of a planet around the sun and that it can vary from a few hours to a year all according to which planet. One day, a translation of the Bible may include, "In the beginning all that was to be, was gathered at one point in time and space and the Lord said, "let it be." And the matter exploded and was distributed throughout space..." Hopefully contradictions, prehistoric concepts, and misogyny will be in lesser amounts in the next translation.
yeah but, is 1 'yom' the same for God prior to forming 'any' Earth? Lets do elaborate mental gymnastics: 1 galactic/cosmic year, is ~230 million Earth years. Its the duration of time for the Sun to orbit the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
SO HOW LONG IS ONE GALACTIC DAY (AKA a galactic tick)
and how long is
ONE UNIVERSAL DAY
and how long is
ONE OF GOD'S DAYS?