Time zones and the creation story

[excreationist]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

[Keith&Co.]

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

Well, yeah.

Everything in Genesis reflects a Flat Earth. And most of the rest of the Books agree.

The sun sleeps in a little doghouse at night, the sky is solid and like the walls of a tent, the Earth was created by spreading it across the waters below like a mud pie...
God will remove the Evil off of earth by grabbing the edges and shaking it like avrug...
That's why so many Flat Earthers keep waving their bibles at the 'debates.'

[Politesse]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

Well, as the sun had not been created yet when this day/night cycle started, I don't see relative lighting could have been present, let alone significant to the story.

[excreationist]

....Well, as the sun had not been created yet when this day/night cycle started, I don't see relative lighting could have been present, let alone significant to the story.

It's odd that the lighting supposedly went from absolute to relative on day 4 (creation of the Sun) with no mention of the change in how "evening" and "morning" work. Maybe the original light source after darkness was created could have been where the Sun ended up being.

[ideologyhunter]

God only invented time zones when there were clocks. Cuckoo clocks.

[skepticalbip]

....Well, as the sun had not been created yet when this day/night cycle started, I don't see relative lighting could have been present, let alone significant to the story.

It's odd that the lighting supposedly went from absolute to relative on day 4 (creation of the Sun) with no mention of the change in how "evening" and "morning" work. Maybe the original light source after darkness was created could have been where the Sun ended up being.

It was not understood that it was the sun that made the day light at the time Genesis was written. Light just was, god created light on day one then divided it from the dark and called the light day and the dark night. The sun and moon were created on the fourth day as afterthoughts to rule the day and night that had already been created three days earlier by the understanding of Genesis' writers. According to those writer's understanding, the light of day still had nothing to do with the sun other than maybe to let the sun know when to come out.

I have no idea why they had not figured out that the sun was the source of light. Maybe it was as simple as they noticed that it was still light under a heavy tree canopy where the sun couldn't be seen so concluded that the light didn't come from the sun.

[bilby]

....Well, as the sun had not been created yet when this day/night cycle started, I don't see relative lighting could have been present, let alone significant to the story.

It's odd that the lighting supposedly went from absolute to relative on day 4 (creation of the Sun) with no mention of the change in how "evening" and "morning" work. Maybe the original light source after darkness was created could have been where the Sun ended up being.

It was not understood that it was the sun that made the day light at the time Genesis was written. Light just was, god created light on day one then divided it from the dark and called the light day and the dark night. The sun and moon were created on the fourth day as afterthoughts to rule the day and night that had already been created three days earlier by the understanding of Genesis' writers. According to those writer's understanding, the light of day still had nothing to do with the sun other than maybe to let the sun know when to come out.

I have no idea why they had not figured out that the sun was the source of light. Maybe it was as simple as they noticed that it was still light under a heavy tree canopy where the sun couldn't be seen so concluded that the light didn't come from the sun.

Frankly, it would have been better if God had arranged for the sun to be up at nighttime, when the light would have come in handy.

[skepticalbip]

It was not understood that it was the sun that made the day light at the time Genesis was written. Light just was, god created light on day one then divided it from the dark and called the light day and the dark night. The sun and moon were created on the fourth day as afterthoughts to rule the day and night that had already been created three days earlier by the understanding of Genesis' writers. According to those writer's understanding, the light of day still had nothing to do with the sun other than maybe to let the sun know when to come out.

I have no idea why they had not figured out that the sun was the source of light. Maybe it was as simple as they noticed that it was still light under a heavy tree canopy where the sun couldn't be seen so concluded that the light didn't come from the sun.

Frankly, it would have been better if God had arranged for the sun to be up at nighttime, when the light would have come in handy.

But if the sun was up at night then no one would be able to see it because it would be too dark outside.

[Lion IRC]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

What makes you think there was no motion of celestial objects in Genesis?
Perpetual daylight on one side of the earth only?

[excreationist]

What makes you think there was no motion of celestial objects in Genesis?
Perpetual daylight on one side of the earth only?

The Sun is still in respect to the solar system. As you probably know it is the earth that rotates and orbits the Sun meaning that daylight on the earth is temporary.