All In a Day’s Work
Biblical interpretation can sometimes get pretty tricky, especially if you don’t take into account the poetic and symbolic language it often uses to explain deeper ideas.Biblical authors often rely on phenomenological language and figurative expressions to communicate their message. Much of the Old Testament and the book of Revelation in the New Testament routinely uses metaphors, parallelisms, and vivid imagery to help portray the fullness of the theme.
Distinguishing between passages intended as literal historical accounts and those crafted with expressive or symbolic language is essential for sound interpretation.
When Isaiah references to “the four corners of the earth” in Isaiah 11:12, he speak of the extremities in all directions, not a strict geometric assertion.
When people claim that Scripture “evolves” with scientific progress, the more accurate assertation is that our interpretation evolves, scripture itself endures. Passages once taken as strictly literal are now better understood as metaphoric or thought provoking, reflecting how the biblical writers intended to describe the world from their inspired perspective.
This short narrative is by no means, intended to be an in‑depth study of biblical interpretation, but only a brief reflection on one of the differences between a literal and a metaphorical reading of Scripture. Recognizing, which is which, and approaching text with the appropriate caution.
I am going to give you one glaring example the church eventually resolved and then another one to seriously consider.
Part 1
In the early 17th century, the Catholic Church continued to uphold the geocentric model, which placed the Earth at the center of the universe. This view, supported by many Church authorities, remained a significant part of Christian teaching at the time. The Church’s condemnation of Galileo Galilei for promoting heliocentrism, (the idea that the Sun is at the center) illustrates how firmly geocentrism was held as doctrinally important.
This geocentric understanding represented the authoritative stance of the Church hierarchy held at that time, their position that the earth occupied the center of the universe was based on the very word of God written in the sacred scriptures. The following passages were commonly cited as foundational support for that view.
"The Lord established the earth upon its foundations, so it will never move." (Psalm 104:5)
“For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.” (1 Sam. 2:8)
These verses were interpreted as support to the belief that the Earth was stationary and at the center of the universe. The Church, particularly during the time of figures like Galileo, viewed heliocentrism as contradictory to these interpretations of Scripture.
Several Popes, including Paul V and Urban VIII, condemned heliocentrism, asserting it was against Sacred Scripture.
John Calvin, who was a pivotal figure in the Protestant Reformation, also reinforced the geocentric view in his writings, emphasizing the Earth’s central position in the cosmos.
The interpretation of these scriptures were influenced by the prevailing scientific understanding of the time, which was largely based on Ptolemaic models of the universe.
The Ptolemaic system, formalized by Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD, is a geocentric model of the universe, meaning
Earth is stationary at the center and all celestial bodies revolve around it. This model built upon earlier Greek, Babylonian, and Egyptian astronomical ideas and dominated scientific thought for over a millennium. It was closely aligned with philosophical and religious beliefs that emphasized Earth's central and special position in the cosmos
But the Catholic Church finally, slowly over the centuries shifted away from it and officially began to distance itself from geocentrism in the 17th century, after they already had condemned Galileo for advocating heliocentrism.
However, it wasn't until the 19th century that the Church fully accepted heliocentrism as compatible with their faith. Think about that, it wasn’t until the 1800’s, that the church officially acknowledged the sun didn’t rotate around the earth.
Today, most Christians interpret these same passages in a way that no longer supports geocentrism, understanding earlier readings as misinterpretations of metaphoric language. When we look at the same verse now, we don’t see it as teaching an immovable Earth, but as describing a planet God has set securely in its orbit around the star He created within a vast and orderly universe.
"The Lord established the earth upon its foundations, so it will never move." (Psalm 104:5)
The point is, we should be careful before deciding that any passage is strictly literal or purely figurative, especially when the literal reading appears to conflict with what we clearly observe in the world.
Part 2
Ok, here’s one to seriously consider: the age of the earth.
I’m not attempting to enter a debate about the patriarchal lifespans or how they might add up, nor am I suggesting that Scripture provides a recorded age for the earth, because it doesn’t. I also don’t intend to explore the many scholarly disputes regarding the practicality of the creation narrative itself, is it a literal narrative or possibly metaphorical or even phenomenological in nature. That’s not what I’m doing, this is not an argument for the age of the earth, this is much narrower than that.
I just want to focus on the word day. And I’m not referring to the familiar argument often raised in a discussion regarding the age of the earth, the one that cites verses such as,
“With the Lord a single day is like a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8) or
“A thousand years are like yesterday past” (Psalm 90:4).
Those passages are frequently used, and are appropriate, as the foundation for that particular interpretation or opinion, but that’s not the direction I’m taking here either.
I just want to talk briefly about the first chapter in Genesis and the use and meaning of the word day.
Before we start our brief discussion regarding the semantics of the word day, I do want to quickly address something I noticed in Genesis 1:1 it says:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
The statement itself contains no indication of time or how long ago this occurred. It could refer to a time in our recent past or to a point far beyond the beginning of human history.
What it does suggest is an order, heaven is created first, then the earth, and if they both weren’t created simultaneously, and there is no definitive indicator they were, I wonder then, how long it was between the two construction projects and how long did each project toke.
In verse 2 (and we don’t know the amount of time that accrued between verse 1 and verse 2, it could have been a few seconds or a million years) We do know that God’s Spirit is described as hovering over what He had made, (perhaps admiring his design) again this hovering is for an unspecified period of time.
So He established the heavens, then manufactured the earth, and afterward surveyed His architecture. The text offers no precise measure of time between these stages. It only states that after those events had occurred and his inspection was complete, he begins to speak forth his earthly creations, calling into existence all that aligned with his will.
Now, finally my brief observation pertaining to the word day.
When we read the text, we will see there are apparently 3 different time periods representing the word day.
First in Genesis 1:3-5 - And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Here God evidently indicates a day is the period of time the sun shines at one location during the 24-hour cycle, so if we’re at the equator, a day is about 12 hours, the time from sunrise to sunset. So we’ll presume in this instance, God says a day is about 12 hours.
Second in Genesis 1:8 and several other places
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
During the rest of the chapter, throughout each one of the creation days descriptions, it uses the same exact verbiage to end that day’s creation “And there was evening and there was morning, indicating now the time period for each of those six days appears to be 24 hours. And I won’t get into a discussion how some theologians view the days and descriptions as metaphoric and phenomenological, which, of course, does have some merit.
Third in Genesis 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
What’s interesting about the seventh day is that Scripture says God finished His work and rested, yet it never concludes the day is over the way it does the previous six. The familiar phrase, “And there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day,” is noticeably absent. The text simply states that God rested and blessed the day.
That omission leaves the duration of the seventh day somewhat open. It may suggest that the day of God’s rest continues or that day hasn’t ended yet, or it may simply reflect a shift in the narrative pattern. Either way, the passage doesn’t give enough detail to make a definitive claim.
There were not a lot of Hebrew words in the original language, and the original words didn’t have vowels, which obviously make translations from sources representing original text somewhat challenging. And each word, as in our own vocabulary now, could have more than one meaning depending on the context.
The original Hebrew word for day is yom: day
Original Word: יוֹם
Transliteration: yom
Phonetic Spelling: (yome)
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Short Definition: day
Meaning: a day
Strong's Concordance
age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today,
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.
As you can see, some of this is very confusing and best left to biblical historians and scholars and even they scratch the heads sometimes.
Here are a few verses where the same word ’yom’ is translated into either an unknown period of time or at least a period of days. It appears as if ‘time’ and ‘day” and ‘days’ are somewhat interchangeable when referenced to ‘yom’
‘Later on, at the time of the wheat harvest, Samson went to visit his wife, bringing along a young goat’ (Judges 15:1)
‘After Isaac had lived there for some time, the Philistines’ King Abimelech looked out his window and saw Isaac laughing together with his wife Rebekah.’ (Genesis 26:8)
‘Like the cold of snow in the time of harvest Is a faithful messenger to those who send him,
For he refreshes the soul of his masters.’ (Proverbs 25:13)
‘Yet from the days of your fathers, you have turned away from My statutes and ordinances and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord of hosts. “But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ (Malichi 3:7)
The point I’m making, is we don’t know for sure the exact meaning that many of the biblical authors intended in many of the passages they wrote, and we should always have an open mind. There have been many occasions where the interpretation I held wholeheartedly, has been fully discredited, by my own further study of the scriptures.
When discussing the interpretation of any biblical passage, we should always be cautious about taking a strictly literal reading of the text, particularly if those verses are in the prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs. Unless the meaning is unmistakably plain, those sections of Scripture are saturated with imagery, metaphor, and symbolic language.
Over time, advances in science and historical understanding have helped clear up some of the misunderstandings that earlier readers carried into the text. Because of that, careful evaluation is always necessary, and we also shouldn’t just assume that the mainstream religious community’s interpretation (what your church teaches) is automatically correct.
Don’t hear what I’m not saying, I’m not saying, not to go to church or listen to your pastor, what I’m say is: Church traditions tend to move slowly, and inherited readings are not always the most faithful to what the original biblical authors actually intended.
Galileo's Trial (1633): Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for promoting the heliocentric model, which led to a significant backlash against heliocentrism within the Church.
Papal Acknowledgment (1992): In a notable reversal, Pope John Paul II formally acknowledged the errors made by the Church in the Galileo affair, marking a significant shift in the Church's stance.
359 years
This writing isn’t a position on anything, other than bible interpretation can be tricky and the deep study of God’s word with humility, produces fruit.
