Now, to Gen. 1. I suppose that one foundational issue has to do with the question of what is a 'day'--the evening and the morning were the first day. Let's take a look at what a couple of reputable reference sources say about the word. The Hebrew word is 'yoml' Here is what NIDOTTE has to say about this word, including ANE roots and OT usage:

"yom1 ( yôm I), daylight, day (24 hours), eschatological day, today (H3427).

ANE Cognates are widely attested and derive from a common Sem. root yawm.

OT 1. The nom. yom1 is by far the most frequently occurring biblical expression for a unit of time. It also merits the distinction of being the primary time unit. Apart from the frequent use of `atah, now (425x), from the common word for time, `et (cf. GKC, 90h), in the sense of "now," "at the present moment" (Num 24:17), "in the present situation" (Gen 19:9), "after what has happened" (Gen 22:12), and apart from the frequent use of various constructions with yom1, for instance, kehayom, meaning right now or this very day (Gen 25:31, 33; 1 Kgs 1:51; 2 Chron 18:4), there are especially two major terms, with their equivalents indicating time: bayom hazeh, on this day, referring to the present, with its emphatic variant be`etsem hayom hazeh, on this very same day (lit., in the bone [the very essence] of this day), and most frequently hayom, and its equivalent hayom hazeh, this day, or today.

As a measurement of time the term (yom1) has three principal uses. (a) Its primary meaning is the time of daylight as distinct from the period of darkness, the night. For example, in Gen 1:5 God called the light "day" (also 7:4; 8:22; 29:7; Exod 24:18; Ps 139:12, etc.).

(b) The term is also used for day in the sense of the complete cycle that includes both daytime and nighttime, e.g. Gen 1:5: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" (cf. 7:24; 50:3; Lev 8:35; Job 3:6).

A "day" in the sense of a complete period of light and darkness might be reckoned as beginning in the morning or in the evening (cf. especially, Beckwith, 218-27). In the OT the earlier practice seems to have been to consider that the day began in the morning. Even in the creation account the formula "Evening came, and morning came" (REB, Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), must be interpreted in the sense that the day began in the morning, because in the context of God's creation, yom1 in the broader sense does not have another beginning than yom1 in the narrower sense of daylight only. In Gen 19:34 the phrase "the next day" (machorat) clearly denotes the morning after the preceding night. Judges 19:5-10 also offers clear evidence that early Israel did count the days from sunrise to sunrise. As the importance of the lunar festivals increased, it became the common practice to count the days from the evening (Exod 12:18; Lev 23:32; Esth 4:16; Isa 27:3; 34:10). The usage is especially apparent in Dan 8:14 ("evenings and mornings") and Neh 13:19 ("When evening shadows fell [tsalalu] on the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath").

(c) The term day is also used in a variety of extended meanings. The term day is being used, for instance, to indicate the period of an action or state of beginning. Thus "in the day that" means "when" (Gen 2:4; Lev 14:2). One's lifetime or reign is his "days" (Gen 26:1; 1 Kgs 10:21). Combined with a genitive the term can be used to denote a time of deliverance, battle, judgment, or disaster (Deut 16:3; Ps 20:1 [2]; 137:7; Isa 9:4: Ezek 30:9, etc.). Similar is the diverse terminology of eschatology, such as "in that day," "in the latter days," "the day of the LORD," etc.

The term day is also used in a variety of idiomatic expressions, such as, lit., "coming in the days," meaning to be past one's prime, to be old (Gen 18:11; Josh 13:1; 1 Kgs 1:1); lit., from days to days, meaning annually (Exod 13:10; Judg 11:40); lit., night and day, meaning all the time, continuously (Isa 27:3), etc."

As a point of interest, I spot-checked the various occurrences of the word in the Hebrew OT, and found a consistent pattern of the word describing a literal 'day,' with occasional extended, idiomatic applications.

Now, compare Keil and Deliztsch:

"“Thus evening was and morning was one day.” DXFJE (one), like eiÎj and unus,
is used at the commencement of a numerical series for the ordinal primus (cf.
Gen. 2:11; 4:19; 8: 5, 15). Like the numbers of the days which follow, it is
without the article, to show that the different days arose from the constant
recurrence of evening and morning. It is not till the sixth and last day that the
article is employed (v. 31), to indicate the termination of the work of creation
upon that day. It is to be observed, that the days of creation are bounded by the
coming of evening and morning. The first day did not consist of the primeval
darkness and the origination of light, but was formed after the creation of the
light by the first interchange of evening and morning. The first evening was not
the gloom, which possibly preceded the full burst of light as it came forth from
the primary darkness, and intervened between the darkness and full, broad
daylight. It was not till after the light had been created, and the separation of the
light from the darkness had taken place, that evening came, and after the
evening the morning; and this coming of evening (lit., the obscure) and morning
(the breaking) formed one, or the first day. It follows from this, that the days of
creation are not reckoned from evening to evening, but from morning to
morning. The first day does not fully terminate till the light returns after the
darkness of night; it is not till the break of the new morning that the first
interchange of light and darkness is completed, and a hÎmeronuÂktion has passed.
The rendering, “out of evening and morning there came one day,” is at variance
with grammar, as well as with the actual fact. With grammar, because such a
thought would require DXFJE „WYOLi; and with fact, because the time from evening
to morning does not constitute a day, but the close of a day. The first day
commenced at the moment when God caused the light to break forth from the
darkness; but this light did not become a day, until the evening had come, and
the darkness which set in with the evening had given place the next morning to
the break of day. Again, neither the words BRˆYHYW RQB YHYW, nor the
expression RQB BRˆ, evening-morning (= day), in Dan. 8:14, corresponds to
the Greek nuxqhÂmeron, for morning is not equivalent to day, nor evening to
night. The reckoning of days from evening to evening in the Mosaic law
(Lev. 23:32), and by many ancient tribes (the pre-Mohammedan Arabs, the
Athenians, Gauls, and Germans), arose not from the days of creation, but from
the custom of regulating seasons by the changes of the moon. But if the days of
creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they
must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, of years or
thousands of years, but as simple earthly days. It is true the morning and
evening of the first three days were not produced by the rising and setting of the
sun, since the sun was not yet created; but the constantly recurring interchange
of light and darkness, which produced day and night upon the earth, cannot for
a moment be understood as denoting that the light called forth from the
darkness of chaos returned to that darkness again, and thus periodically burst
forth and disappeared. The only way in which we can represent it to ourselves,
is by supposing that the light called forth by the creative mandate, “Let there
be,” was separated from the dark mass of the earth, and concentrated outside or
above the globe, so that the interchange of light and darkness took place as
soon as the dark chaotic mass began to rotate, and to assume in the process of
creation the form of a spherical body. The time occupied in the first rotations of
the earth upon its axis cannot, indeed, be measured by our hour-glass; but even
if they were slower at first, and did not attain their present velocity till the
completion of our solar system, this would make no essential difference
between the first three days and the last three, which were regulated by the
rising and setting of the sun.f
ft[FOOTNOTE=Exegesis must insist upon this, and not allow itself to
alter the plain sense of the words of the Bible, from irrelevant and
untimely regard to the so-called certain inductions of natural science.
Irrelevant we call such considerations, as make interpretation dependent
upon natural science, because the creation lies outside the limits of
empirical and speculative research, and, as an act of the omnipotent
God, belongs rather to the sphere of miracles and mysteries, which can
only be received by faith (Heb. 11: 3); and untimely, because natural
science has supplied no certain conclusions as to the origin of the earth,
and geology especially, even at the present time, is in a chaotic state of
fermentation, the issue of which it is impossible to foresee.]"

We Recognize, then, that the primary meaning of 'yom1' is a 24-hour literal day, and that it also has extended, idiomatic meanings, which, however, do not seem to be pertinent to its usage in Gen. 1, according to both Biblical authorities quoted above. The weight of authority points to the literal usage of the word in Gen. 1. As a cross-check, we would do well to look at other passages in the OT which might bear on the question, to help us develop a clearer picture of the author's intent in using the word 'yom1' in Gen. 1.

But, enough for now. Any thoughts on the foregoing?

There is one realy easy place right here in the Denver area.
Morrison Hogback just out side of the town of Morrison. Easy access off of I-70 or C 470 through Morrison. These tracs are on the side of the ridge in a protected area, very accessable with a self guided tour of the sites. The Place I was at, was Picket Wire Canyon, south of La Junta, Co. They are about a 12 mile RT hike to the Purgatory River. Not recommended for Summer excursions. Very hot at that time of year...88-90 there last Sunday. A lot of history in that area though with rock art and other evidences of habitation long before more recent NA habitation.

But I've asked the question before: is there any single piece of evidence that qould convince you that creation did not occur in a literal, 7 day week? If there is no such piece of evidence, then your belief is not falsifiable, and there is zero point in adducing any evidence at all, since no evidence will ever change your position.

Thanks CoAspen--La Junta is way too hot in the summer (but then, why in the world are we going to grand canyon in the summer? Oh, yeah, that's when our furlough is!)--Morrison sounds easier. We'll check it out.

Speaking of other signs of habitation--I want to go to Mesa Verde on our way back up from the gc. I haven't been there since I was about my boys' age, but I've always loved the place. They've seen pictures and want to visit. Wish we could hit Canyon de Chelle, but that would be a bit much in the summer, with the kiddos!

M

Quote:

---

that will essentially deal with all of the evidence without changing the basics of those positions

---

There is lots of possible evidence that could persuade me that the Genesis account is wrong.

Unfortunately there has not been any actually found - despite millions of person-years being put into the search by scientists.

Geological evidence of a world-wide flood - and not just silly misinterpretations like "but there are shells on top of Everest" or "the Grand Canyon".

Fossil evidence that is obviously in the wrong order - and not just discredited stuff such as the carved human footprints in the Paluxy River bed.

/Bevin

Ron: I don't think I was accusing anyone of intellectual dishonesty. I have just seen very clearly that every piece of evidence that is presented, David already has an explanation for that fits his existing position. That may be intellectually honest, in that he's looked at the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion, but he hasn't yet been able or willing to *identify* a specific test of his position that would be able to falsify it. Under Karl Popper's definition, that means his position is not scientific. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or a bad position, just means there's no point bringing evidence to the discussion. And in fact I've gone outside Popper's definition because he just talks about empirical, physical evidence, where I'm also willing to consider Biblical, textual evidence. Would there be an interpretation of Scripture - rigorous, careful, appropriate - that would convince David (or you) to change your position? If not, as I said, there's no point doing all the hard work of adducing more evidence. Doesn't mean you're wrong, bad or intellectually dishonest, just means your mind is made up.