聖經註釋書

And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God saw the light that it was good. — - Moveover he foresaw , so one renders it. praeviderat autem - Zaberellus He saw this long before, but he would have us to see it; he commends the goodness of this work of his to us. Good it is surely, and a goodly creature: "sweet," saith Solomon; Ecclesiastes 11:7 "comfortable," saith David. Psalms 97:11 Which when one made question of - "That’s a blind man’s question," said the philosopher. τυφλου το ερωτημα , Aristotle What is it then to enjoy him that is light essential? The Platonists (who were blind in divinis , and could not see afar off) could say that he was a blessed man, who enjoyed God, as the eye doth enjoy the light. Beatum esse moninem Deo fruentem, sicut occulus luce. Augustine, De Civitate Dei , l. 3.

And God divided the light, … — - Let not us confound them, 2 Corinthians 6:14 1 Thessalonians 5:5-7 and so alter God’s order by doing deeds of darkness, in a day of grace, in a land of light. What make owls at Athens? or such "spots," σπιλοι χαι μωμοι , among saints, as "count it pleasure to riot in the daytime?" 2 Peter 2:13 It was a shame that it should be said, There was never less wisdom in Greece, than in the time of the seven wise men of Greece. Lactant. It was a worse "shame," that it should be said to the Corinthians, that "some of them had not the knowledge of God"; 1 Corinthians 15:34 and that such fornication was found among them as was not heard of among the heathen. 1 Corinthians 5:1 For what fellowship hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14 Surely none. Our morning shadows fall as far as they can toward the west, evening toward the east, noonday toward the north, … Alexander having a soldier of his name, that was a coward, he bade him either abandon the name of Alexander, or be a soldier. Plutarch

return to '

5. 第一日——是一個自然日，正如其兩部分的提及所清楚確定的；而摩西按照東方的慣例，從日落到日落計算，不像我們說「日和夜」，而是說「晚上和早晨」。

「稱光為晝，……」——神把光與暗分開之後，就按它們如今所處的限度，給它們起了晝與夜的新名。在此之前，地球的歷史中還沒有理性的居民，因而沒有命名的用處。所以，命名的舉動表明我們已到達事物之名即將成為必要的階段，因為一個理性的受造物即將登場。

命名似乎就是按一般概念在受名之物中實現的特定方式加以指稱，這由本章以下部分出現的幾個例子說明。命名是製造者、擁有者或其他居上位者的權利；因此，接受名字表明受名之物隸屬於命名者。名與物相應：前者是後者的記號；因此，在聖經具體而寫實的文體中，名常代表它所指的事物、性質、人物或權柄。

晝與夜的命名向我們解釋了「把光暗分開」的意義：就是使二者彼此分離，並使二者在一夜一日的過程中，有條不紊地分佈於地表的不同部分。這只能在地球繞軸自轉一週的時間內實現。因此，倘若光從天空某一特定區域輻射出來，從而在某一子午線上與暗分開，而地球同時進行其每日的運轉，那麼昏、夜、晨、晝的接連變化，就會在那第一場偉大創造之工中，以緩慢而莊嚴的進程自然呈現。

這樣，我們就有證據表明，在最後這次創造的第一日，地球的每日自轉已經發生。經文沒有告訴我們它在此之前是否發生。倘若曾有一個時期地球不自轉，或循不同的軸、按不同的法則自轉，那麼第一次自轉或自轉的改變，必在萬物面貌上產生巨大的變化，其痕跡必存留至今——無論那推動力只傳給固體本身，還是同時傳給其表面鬆散的物質。但經文對這樣的變化沒有任何暗示。

然而目前我們當記得，我們所論及的，只是洪水以前的人所知的地，以及照現有晝夜安排、光在那地之上的進入存在。光的迸發究竟擴及執筆者所知之地以外多遠，眼前這段敘述不能使我們斷定。

我們現在可以有把握地斷定：光進入這黑暗的地區，是藉著它位置的改變、或其上覆大氣的改變而實現的——這改變使晝夜的交替得以辨識，而同時尚有足夠的昏暗，使天體隱於視野之外。我們從第一節已經知道，這些天體早已受造。光這一要素在自然過程中扮演如此顯著而必要的角色，必屬那原初創造的一部分。因此，黑暗從所述地點的除去，僅僅是由於一次新的調整，使先在的光帶著它那令人振奮、使人生氣勃勃的光線，臨到深淵的表面。

在這情形下，實際的改變固然不在光本身，而在那阻隔其光線的介質。但另一方面當記得：神聖介入的實際結果，仍是光散布在水面上；而本章向我們描述的，是這改變在旁觀者眼中會呈現的實際現象，而不是六日創造那些看不見的根源。

「有晚上，有早晨，這是頭一日。」——本節末句是對這第一件創造之工期間全部時間過程的複述。因此，這是一個簡明而醒目的例子：兩行敘事彼此平行，在時間上完全重合。一般我們發現一行只與另一行的一部分重疊。

按希伯來敘事的方式，日子以其起點「晚上」來描述。其上半程在夜間跑完；下半程同樣以「早晨」開始，在正當的晝間走完其程；然後整個時期被描述為「一日」。這樣，日的終點又是晚上，這與希伯來人的時間劃分相符（Leviticus 23:32）。

因此，把這裏的「晚上」當作第一日的結束，從而把「早晨」當作第一夜的結束——有些解經家正是這樣作——既不合希伯來文的文法，也不合他們計時的方式。這種解釋又是先指出時期的中點、再指出其終點來界定一晝夜的期間，似乎並不自然。它還以「晚上」界定日光照射的時段（即嚴格意義的晝），以早晨界定夜；這同樣不自然。它甚至沒有使後句的事件晚於前句的好處，因為二十四小時的日子全部用於把光暗分開；而無論怎樣理解，這後一句所描述的仍是同一天。因此，這種對該句的解釋當予拒絕。

這創造的諸日是每個二十四小時的自然日。若無聖經經文或自然法則的充分根據，我們不可偏離這詞的通常意義；而我們迄今未找到任何這樣的根據。惟有出於必要才能迫使我們採取那種權宜之計。另一方面，聖經既未暗示別的意義，又以「晚上、夜、早晨、日」為其通常的劃分，這就授權我們保留通行的意義。自然界也支持同樣的解釋。一切地質變化當然都在第一節所記那件大事——萬物之始——之後；而除了六日創造所記的那一件之外，所有這些變化又同樣確定地在第二節所描述的狀態之前。因此，這最後一次創造性的介入並不需要長久的時期。

「頭一日」——這裏以「一」（day one）指第一日，因為希伯來文基數詞通常不用作序數詞（Gen 8:13; Exodus 10:1-2）。它不能表示這日的任何強調或獨特，因為它與創造的其他各日毫無分別。它暗示前面所述的兩部分構成一日；但其他各日的所有序數詞也同樣暗示這一點。

這一日對我們有許多方面的意義：它是最後創造的第一日；它是一週的第一日；它是彌賽亞復活的日子；它已成為基督徒的安息日。

開首五節構成希伯來文的第一個 parashah（פרשׁ pārāsh），即「段」。這一劃分若出於作者，就表明他把第一日的工作視為敘述的主體，而把第一節中宇宙的創造、第二節中地球的狀況，視為引入並闡明其主要陳述的引言。反之，它若出於後世某位抄寫者，則可能表明他認為第一日的創造之工包含兩部分：第一，絕對的創造；第二，一項補充的作為，使這原初的宇宙首次得蒙光照。

And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night,.... Either by the circulating motion of the above body of light, or by the rotation of the chaos on its own axis towards it, in the space of twenty four hours there was a vicissitude of light and darkness; just as there is now by the like motion either of the sun, or of the earth; and which after this appellation God has given, we call the one, day, and the other, night: and the evening and the morning were the first day: the evening, the first part of the night, or darkness, put for the whole night, which might be about the space of twelve hours; and the morning, which was the first part of the day, or light, put also for the whole, which made the same space, and both together one natural day, consisting of twenty four hours; what Daniel calls an "evening morning", Dan 8:26 and the apostle a "night day", Co2 11:25. Thales being asked which was first made, the night or the day, answered, the night was before one day (m). The Jews begin their day from the preceding evening; so many other nations: the Athenians used to reckon their day from sun setting to sun setting (n); the Romans from the middle of the night, to the middle of the night following, as Gellius (o) relates; and Tacitus (p) reports of the ancient Germans, that they used to compute not the number of days, but of nights, reckoning that the night led the day. Caesar (q) observes of the ancient Druids in Britain, that they counted time not by the number of days, but nights; and observed birthdays, and the beginnings of months and years, so as that the day followed the night; and we have some traces of this still among us, as when we say this day se'nnight, or this day fortnight. This first day of the creation, according to James Capellus, was the eighteenth of April; but, according to Bishop Usher, the twenty third of October; the one beginning the creation in the spring, the other in autumn. It is a notion of Mr. Whiston's, that the six days of the creation were equal to six years, a day and a year being one and the same thing before the fall of man, when the diurnal rotation of the earth about its axis, as he thinks, began; and in agreement with this, very remarkable is the doctrine Empedocles taught, that when mankind sprung originally from the earth, the length of the day, by reason of the slowness of the sun's motion, was equal to ten of our present months (r). The Hebrew word "Ereb", rendered "evening", is retained by some of the Greek poets, as by Hesiod (s), who says, out of the "chaos" came "Erebus", and black night, and out of the night ether and the day; and Aristophanes (t), whose words are, chaos, night, and black "Erebus" were first, and wide Tartarus, but there were neither earth, air, nor heaven, but in the infinite bosom of Erebus, black winged night first brought forth a windy egg, &c. And Orpheus (u) makes night to be the beginning of all things. (m) Laert. in Vita Thaletis. p. 24. (n) Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 77. (o) Noct. Attic. l. 3. c. 2. (p) De Mor. German. c. 11. (q) Commentar. l. 6. p. 141. (r) Vid. Universal History, vol. 1. p. 79. (s) ', &c. Hesiod. Theogonia. (t) &c. Aristophanes in Avibus. (u) Hymn. 2. ver. 2.

It is acknowledged by all, that the

evening and the morning are not here to be understood according to our common usage, but are put by a synecdoche each of them for one whole part of the natural day. But because it may be doubted which part each of them signifies, some understand by

evening, the foregoing day; and by

the morning, the foregoing night; and so the natural day begins with the morning or the light, as it did with the ancient Chaldeans. Others by

evening understand the first night or darkness which was upon the face of the earth, Gen 1:2, which probably continued for the space of about twelve hours, the beginning whereof might fitly be called

evening; and by

morning the succeeding light or day, which may reasonably be supposed to continue the other twelve hours, or thereabouts. And this seems the truer opinion,

1. Because the darkness was before the light, as the

evening is put before the

morning, Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8, and afterwards.

2. Because this best agrees both with the vulgar and with the Scripture use of the terms of

evening and morning.

3. Because the Jews, who had the best opportunity of knowing the mind of God in this matter by Moses and other succeeding prophets, begun both their common and sacred days with the evening, as is confessed, and may be gathered from Lev 23:32.

Were the first day; did constitute or make up the first day; day of being taken largely for the natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours: these were the parts the first day; and the like is to be understood of the succeeding days. Moreover, God, who could have made all things at once, was pleased to divide his work into six days, partly to give us occasion more distinctly and seriously to consider God's works, and principally to lay the foundation for the weekly sabbath, as is clearly intimated, Gen 2:2-3 Exo 20:9-11.

Verse 5. - And God called (literally, called to) the light Day, and (literally, to) the darkness he called Night. "None but superficial thinkers," says Delitzsch, "can take offence at the idea of created things receiving names from God. The name of a thing is the expression of its nature. If the name be given by man, it fixes in a word the impression which it makes upon the human mind; but, when given by God, it expresses the reality, what the thing is in God's creation, and the place assigned it there by the side of other things." The things named were the light and the darkness; not the durations, but the phenomena. The names called were day, yore, and night, layela, which, again, were not time-measures, but character-descriptions. Ainsworth suggests that yore was intended to express "the tumult, stir, and business of the day," in all probability connecting it with yam, which depicts the foaming or the boiling of the sea; and that layela, in which he seems to detect the Latin ululare, is indicative of "the yelling or the howling of wild beasts at night." Gesenius derives the former from the unused root yore, which signifies to glow with heat, while the latter he associates with lul, also unused, to roll up, the idea being that the night wraps all things in obscurity. Macdonald sees in the naming of the creatures an expression of sovereignty and lordship, as when Adam named the beasts of the field. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Literally, And evening was and morning was, day one. Considerable diversity of sentiment prevails with regard to the exact interpretation of these words. On the one hand, it is assumed that the first creative period is here described as an ordinary astronomical or sidereal day of twenty-four hours' duration, its constituent parts being characterized in the usual way, as an evening and a morning. In the judgment of Kalisch and others the peculiar phrase, "Evening was, and morning was," is simply equivalent to the later Hebrew compound "evening-morning" (Daniel 8:14), and the Greek νηχθήμερον (2 Corinthians 11:25), both of which denote a natural or civil day, though this is challenged, in the case of the Hebrew compound, by Macdonald. The language of the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:11) is also appealed to as removing, it beyond the sphere of doubt that the evening and the morning referred to are-the component sections of an earthly day. As to the proper terminus a quo of this initial day, however, the advocates of this interpretation are at variance among themselves; Delitzsch taking the terms ereb (literally, "the setting," from arab,

(1) to mix;

(2) to set, to depart, like the sun)

and boker (literally, "the breaking forth," from bakar, to cleave, to open) in an active sense, and applying the former to the first fading of the light, and the latter to the breaking of the dawn after the first interval of darkness has passed, thus reckoning the creative days from daybreak to daybreak; while Murphy and Kalisch, who agree with him in regarding the days as ordinary solar days, declare they must be reckoned, Hebraico more, from sunset to sunset. But if the first day commenced with an evening or obscure period (Has ereb no connection with arab, to mix? May it not describe the condition of things when light and darkness were commingled?), that can be discovered only in the chaotic darkness out of which the light sprang. Hence, on the other hand, as it seems improbable that this was of no more than twelve hours' duration, and as the presumption is that the light-period would be commensurate in length, it has been argued that day one was not a sun-measured day, but a period of indefinite extent. Of course the length of day one practically determines the length of all the six. If it was a solar day, then they must be considered such. But as the present sidereal arrangements for the measurement of time were not then established, it is clearly gratuitous to proceed on the assumption that it was Hence, neither is it to be accepted without-demonstration that they were not likewise periods of prolonged duration. It is obvious they were if it was; and that it was appears to be suggested by the terms in which it is described. This conclusion, that the creation days were long periods, and not simply solar days, is confirmed by a variety of considerations.

1. In the creation record itself (Genesis 2:4) the term is employed with an obvious latitude of meaning; standing for light as opposed to darkness (ver. 5); day as distinguished from night; and for a period of twenty-four hours, as in the phrase "for days and years" (ver. 14); and again for the whole creation period of six days, or, as is more probable, for the second and third days (Genesis 2:4).

2. General Scripture usage sanctions this interpretation of the word day as a period of indefinite duration; g. g. Zechariah 14:6, 7, which speaks of the time of our Lord s coming, and-indeed of the entire gospel dispensation, as יום אֶחָד unus dies, i.e. a day together unique, the only day of its kind (Delitzsch); and characterizes it as one of God's days, "known to the Lord," as if to distinguish it from one of man's ordinary civil days (cf. Deuteronomy 9:1; Psalm 90:4; Psalm 95:8; Isaiah 49:8; John 9:4; Hebrews 13:8; 2 Peter 3:8).

3. The works ascribed to the different days can with difficulty be compressed within the limits of a solar day. Taking the third day, e.g., if the events assigned to it belong exclusively to the region of the supernatural, nothing need prevent the belief that twenty-four hours were sufficient for their accomplishment; but if the Divine modus operandi during the first half of the creative week was through "existing causes" (even vastly accelerated), as geology affirms that it was during the second half, and as we know that it has been ever since its termination, then a considerably larger space of time than twice twelve hours must have been consumed in their execution. And the same conclusion forces itself upon the judgment from a consideration of the works allotted to the sixth day, in which not only were the animals produced and Adam made, but the former, being collected in Eden, were passed in review before the latter to be named, after which he was cast into a sleep by Jehovah Elohim, a rib extracted from his side and fashioned into a woman, and the woman presented to him as a partner.

4. The duration of the seventh day of necessity determines the length of the other six. Without anticipating the exposition of Genesis 2:1-4 (q.v.), it may be said that God's sabbatic rest is understood by the best interpreters of Scripture to have continued from creation's close until the present hour; so that consistency demands the previous six days to be considered as not of short, but of indefinite, duration.

5. The language of the fourth commandment, when interpreted in accordance with the present theory, confirms the probability of its truth, If the six days in Exodus 20:11 are simply natural days, then the seventh day, in which God is represented as having rested from his creative labors, must likewise be a natural or solar day; and if so, it is proper to observe what follows. It follows

(1) that the events recorded in the first five verses of Genesis must be compressed into a single day of twenty-four hours, so that no gap will remain into which the short-day advocates may thrust the geologic ages, which is for them an imperative necessity;

(2) that the world is only 144 hours older than man, which is contrary to both science and revelation;

(3) that the statement is incorrect that God finished all his work at the close of the sixth day; and

(4) that the fossiliferous remains which have been discovered in the earth's crust have either been deposited there since man's creation, or were created there at the first, both of which suppositions are untenable. But now, if, on the contrary, the language signifies that God labored in the fashioning of his cosmos through six successive periods of indefinite duration (olamim, aeons), and entered on the seventh day into a correspondingly long period of sabbatic rest, we can hold the opposite of every one of these conclusions, and find a convincing argument besides for the observance of the sabbath in the beautiful analogy which subsists between God s great week of olamim and man's little week of sun-measured days,

6. Geology declares that the earth must have been brought to its present condition through a series of labors extending over indefinitely long epochs; and, notwithstanding the confident assertion of Kalisch and others that it is hopeless to harmonize science and revelation, the correspondence between the contents of these geologic ages and those of the Mosaic days is so surprising as to induce the belief that the latter were, like the former, extended periods. First, according to geology, traveling backward, comes the Cainozoic era, with the remains of animals, but not of man next is the Mezozoic era, with the remains of fish and fowl, but not of animals; and underneath that is the Palaeozoic era, with its carboniferous formations, but still with traces of aquatic life at its beginning and its end. Now, whether the vegetation of the third day is to be sought for in the carboniferous formations of the Palaeozoic age (Hugh Miller), or, as is more probable, in the age which saw the formation of the metamorphic rocks (Dawson), the order disclosed is precisely that which the Mosaic narrative affirms was observed first plants, then fish and fowl, and finally animals and man; so that if the testimony of the rocks be admissible at all upon the subject, it is unmistakably in favor of the long-period day.

7. The opinion of neither Jewish nor Christian antiquity was entirely on the side of the natural-day theory. Josephus and Philo lent their sanction to the other view. Origen perceived the difficulty of having a firs. t, second, and third day, each with an evening and a morning, without the sun, moon, and stars, and resolved it by saying that these celestial luminaries were appointed "οὔκετι εἴς ἄρχας τῆς ἠμέρας καὶ τὴς νυκτὸς ἀλλ εἴς τὴν ἄρχην τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτός ('Com. in Genesin,' 1:16). Augustine similarly writes, "Qui dies cujusmodi sint, ant perdifficile nobis, ant etiam impossibile est cogitare, quanto magis dicere Illorum autem priores tres sine sole peracti sunt, qui quarto die factus refertur" ('De Civitate Dei,' lib. 11:6, 7). Bode likewise remarks, "Fortassis hic diet nomen totius temporis nomen est, et omnia volumina seculorum hoc vocabulo includit."

8. Heathen cosmogonies may also be appealed to as an indirect confirmation of the preceding evidence. Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Etruscan legends represent the elaboration of the world as having been accomplished in a series of ages of prolonged duration. "God created in the first thousand years heaven and earth; in the second the vault of heaven; in the third the sea and the other waters of the earth; in the fourth the sun, moon, and stars; in the fifth the inhabitants of the air, of the water, and of the land; and in the sixth man," is the creation story of Etruria; and although in itself it has no validity, yet, as a traditional reflection of the Mosaic narrative it is not entirely destitute of weight.

(5) God called the light Day . . . Night.—Before this distinction of night and day was possible there must have been outside the earth, not as yet the sun, but a bright phosphorescent mass, such as now enwraps that luminary; and, secondly, the earth must have begun to revolve upon its axis. Consequent upon this would be, not merely alternate periods of light and darkness, but also of heat and cold, from which would result important effects upon the formation of the earth’s crust. Moreover, in thus giving “day” and “night” names, God ordained language, and that vocal sounds should be the symbols of things. This law already looks forward to the existence of man, the one being on earth who calls things by their names.

And the evening and the morning.—Literally, And was an evening and was a morning day one, the definite article not being used till Genesis 1:31, when we have “day the sixth,” which was also the last of the creative days.

The word “evening” means a mixture. It is no longer the opaque darkness of a world without light, but the intermingling of light and darkness (comp. Zechariah 14:6-7). This is followed by a “morning,” that is, a breaking forth of light. Evening is placed first because there was a progress from a less to a greater brightness and order and beauty. The Jewish method of calculating the day from sunset to sunset was not the cause, but the result of this arrangement.

The first day.—A creative day is not a period of twenty-four hours, but an œon, or period of indefinite duration, as the Bible itself teaches us. For in Genesis 2:4 the six days of this narrative are described as and summed up in one day, creation being there regarded, not in its successive stages, but as a whole. So by the common consent of commentators, the seventh day, or day of God’s rest, is that age in which we are now living, and which will continue until the consummation of all things. So in Zechariah 14:7 the whole Gospel dispensation is called “one day;” and constantly in Hebrew, as probably in all languages, day is used in a very indefinite manner, as, for instance, in Deuteronomy 9:1. Those, however, who adopt the very probable suggestion of Kurtz, that the revelation of the manner of creation was made in a succession of representations or pictures displayed before the mental vision of the tranced seer, have no difficulties. He saw the dark gloom of evening pierced by the bright morning light: that was day one. Again, an evening cleft by the light, and he saw an opening space expanding itself around the world: that was day two. Again darkness and light, and on the surface of the earth he saw the waters rushing down into the seas: that was day three. And so on. What else could he call these periods but days? But as St. Augustine pointed out, there was no sun then, and “it is very difficult for us to imagine what sort of days these could be” (De Civ. Dei, xi. 6, 7). It must further be observed that this knowledge of the stages of creation could only have been given by revelation, and that the agreement of the Mosaic record with geology is so striking that there is no real difficulty in believing it to be inspired. The difficulties arise almost entirely from popular fallacies or the mistaken views of commentators. Geology has done noble service for religion in sweeping away the mean views of God’s method of working which used formerly to prevail. We may add that among the Chaldeans a cosmic day was a period of 43,200 years, being the equivalent of the cycle of the procession of the equinoxes (Lenormant, Les Origines de l’Histoire, p. 233).

5. And God called …] That God should give names to things is to our minds a strange and almost unintelligible thought. To the Hebrews, on the contrary, it seemed a natural feature of the story. To them the Hebrew language was that in which the Divine Will was expressed; and, to their minds, the Hebrew name and the thing which it designated had been rendered inseparable by Divine Decree on the day of its creation.

Observe that the names “Day” and “Night” are given to “light” and “darkness,” although the heavenly bodies are not made until the fourth day.

and there was …] The “day” with the Hebrews began in the evening. It was reckoned from 6 p.m. to 6 p.m. The Israelite writer, therefore, in speaking of the days of Creation, describes them as ordinary days with their succession of evening and morning. There is no need to suppose, as some have done, that the “evening” in this verse refers to the pre-existent darkness of Genesis 1:2, and that “morning” denotes the period of light before the creative work of the second day. In the mention of the days, the Hebrew story of Creation is perfectly simple and natural. With childlike faith, it told how the Creator completed His work in a time corresponding to six earthly days, each consisting of evening and morning. The hallowing of the seventh day, in chap. Genesis 2:2-3, presupposes the literal character of the previous six days.

Suggestions have frequently been made in the course of the last half century, that each of the six days is to be understood as a period of indefinite duration. But it is important to remember that the facts, with which modern science has familiarized us, respecting the antiquity of the earth, as shewn by geology, and our solar system, as shewn by astronomy, were wholly unknown until quite recent times. We must be careful, therefore, not to read back such notions into the minds of the writer and of those for whom he wrote this chapter. The assumption that the inspired record must be literally accurate has led to much misinterpretation of Scripture as well as to great mental confusion and religious distress.

The difficulties, which have been felt with regard to the mention of “days,” have arisen from the natural wish to reconcile the plain and childlike language of ancient unscientific Semitic story, which accounted for the origin of the world, with the abstruse and dazzling discoveries of modern Physical Science. The two must be kept absolutely distinct.

one day] So the Hebrew, not “the first day”; but “one day,” LXX ἡμέρα μία, Lat. dies unus.