AIG: Why Wasn’t Day Two ‘Good’?

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) are tackling one of the greatest problems in the world — one which has stumped everyone. Their discussion is at the AIG website — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

It’s titled Feedback: Why Wasn’t Day Two Declared “Good”?, and it has two authors. The first is Avery Foley. AIG says she has a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. Her co-author is Her co-author is Troy Lacey, AIG’s correspondence representative — whatever that is. The two of them have teamed up before — see Answers in Genesis — The Waters of the Flood.

We know you’re interested, so we’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis. They begin with a question ol’ Hambo received on Facebook:

On Day 2 of Creation why did God not say that it was “good” like He did for each of the other days?

We’ve always wondered about that! No doubt, you have too, dear reader. The creation scientists inform us what the bible says about Day 2:

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (Genesis 1:6–8)

Ah yes. God stuck Heaven in the middle of the waters, which explains why we have waters below Heaven and also waters above Heaven. After that the Dynamic duo tell us:

Unlike the other five days of creation week, God does not look over what he has made and see that it was “good.” Some people have wondered why God doesn’t specifically say that this day was good. While day two was not specifically called “good,” we know the day, and what God did on that day, was good. Genesis 1:31 tells us that everything God made at the end of the creative process was “very good.” This, of course, would include day two and everything formed on that day.

That makes sense. They continue:

God calling everything he had made “very good” means there could not have been any death or suffering before sin. Death and the curse are the consequences of sin (Genesis 2:17), so they could not have existed before sin. Neither is God going to call a broken creation full of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed “very good.” That goes against God’s character and puts the blame for death and suffering on God, instead of on human beings who rebelled against him.

If the days were long periods of time, as some Christians try to argue, then there were millions of years of death and suffering before sin. … The days in Genesis were not millions of years each. They were literal, 24-hour days.

Only a hell-bound fool would deny it! Let’s read on:

Although Scripture doesn’t explicitly state why day two isn’t called “good,” some Bible commentators and theologians have used biblically inferred hypotheses. The first and most prominent hypothesis is that God didn’t actively create anything on day two. Rather, he took material created on day one and separated it. Yes, he made the expanse (sometimes called the firmament), but this appears to be just a separation of what was created on day one , rather than a unique creative event.

Yes, that might explain it. But wait — there’s another explanation. We’re told:

The second hypothesis is that if God did actively create on day two, he may have spent his creative time on the heavens, so this would have been the only day where earth was not the primary focus of his creation. Even in creating the celestial objects on day four, God stated that their purpose was to give light on the earth and to function as signs and seasons (for the later inhabitants of the earth). Perhaps God created atomic, subatomic and gravitational forces, and natural laws on this day. He may have even instigated episodes of accelerated nuclear decay on day two. While these things are necessary, they are not only related to the earth or mankind and the creatures on earth.

Now we’re confused. Which hypothesis is The Truth? The creation scientists explain:

However, day two not being referred to as “good” is not an omission. Omission implies that it should have been there but was forgotten or accidently [sic] not included. It was deliberately left out.

Why? What does that omission mean? The creation scientists inform us:

It was also deliberately left out on day seven (Genesis 2:2–3). While the Bible states that God rested on the seventh day and that he “blessed” that day and “made it holy” (which would certainly qualify it as being a “good” day), the “it was good” statement is also absent from that day.

Egad, we’re really confused! The answer better come soon, because now we’re at the end:

Again, we can only speculate, but it seems the most likely reason is that God did not actively create anything on that day.

This is most unsatisfactory. Perhaps you, dear reader, can provide us with a better answer.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “AIG: Why Wasn’t Day Two ‘Good’?

  1. Eddie Janssen

    Other questions:
    “And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” Why first evening and only then morning? Did the days begin at 6 o’çlock in the evening in those early days (with no sun it would be hard to tell anyway)?
    Were they there? Ofcourse, Ham was there, but these two were definitely not.
    And as a bonus question: Did Jesus exist at day two?

  2. Good, but not better or best? Kind of a so-so creation it seems.

  3. Quality inspector gets Mondays and Saturdays off…no exceptions!

  4. Michael Fugate

    Why is death good or bad? It just is.
    Any way, the story as told is such that the earth with no death lasted for a couple of days at best.

    Then there is Genesis 3:22
    And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    If there was no death, then why a tree of life?

  5. The Hebrew calendar marks the beginning of the day at sunset.
    The puzzles about the days of creation: when does a day begin on a round Earth, what time zone? When the Sun appears in the sky – explicitly said to be there to mark the passage of days, and to divide day from night – on day four?

  6. Such silliness. I rather spend my time wading throw Hawking’s final paper with Thomas Hertog “A smooth exit from eternal inflation?”

    Do I understand it? Hardly but I did want to see Hawking was thinking nearing his end and he was thinking big about the universe and the multiverse. Here’s one of the key points:

    Our conjecture strengthens the intuition that holographic cosmology implies a significant reduction of the multiverse to a much more limited set of possible universes. This has important implications for anthropic reasoning.

    Bottom-line there are only so many physical outcomes for multiple universes . All in all, a much better read than some nitwits ascribing alpha-male behavior to some supposed creator god.

  7. It’s amazing that such concerns are the basis for speculation. It appears that it’s necessary to analyze every word in the bible. Do we examine the usage of all the various parts of speech? I propose that we concentrate on the use of conjunctions next – they may involve important truths!

    It seems as if the people at AIG don’t have enough to do. As I remember, there is something about the devil finding work for idle hands. AIG has taken this to heart!

  8. Avery (yes, we know you’re reading this) needs to either cut back on the caffeinated coffee or stop sucking helium from the kiddie balloons in the Ark Encounter gift shop.

    Or… maybe she talks fast like that on purpose to try and disguise the B.S.?……

  9. Hold on a moment. If Ken Ham says that we’re to accept Genesis as literal truth, then surely we’re not allowed to surmise or speculate, or make any other assumptions. This would be the thin edge of the wedge. So if it doesn’t say that Day 2 was good, then it can only be because it wasn’t.

  10. BTW, poor old Troy Lacey doesn’t rate a biographical profile on AIG. My theory is that he is one of the drones in Sector7-G, and he is paid by the word.

  11. Derek Freyberg

    The third hypothesis, and the one I endorse, is that the scribes back when were not too worried about consistency of style.

  12. Michael Fugate

    or no editor involved – think self-published genius.

  13. @tedinoz

    “If Ken Ham says that we’re to accept Genesis as literal truth, then surely we’re not allowed to surmise or speculate, or make any other assumptions”

    Right? If you start doing that, next thing you know you’re making up crap about the logistics of Noah’s Ark to make it look more feasible, giving his wife a name, and naming a kitchen after her!

    uh, hrmmmm………

  14. Theodore Lawry

    This is what happens to people when they shut themselves up in their own little world. Biblical literalism is the ultimate echo chamber.

  15. Charles Deetz ;)

    So they ignore the thing that was said to be created, but doesn’t exist (firmament), and instead discuss the creation of things that really exist but aren’t mentioned in the Bible. Cognitive dissonance skill level 10!

  16. @Derek Freyberg
    There is a variant on your hypothesis.
    The authors want to make it clear that this is not to be taken literally.

  17. Retired Prof

    I hold with Derek Freyberg. The scribe was working with materials from oral tradition. I don’t know about ancient Hebrew poetry specifically, but it was common for preliterate singers to sing their stories in verse that was hung on a narrative framework filled in with stock scenes and composed ex tempore during the performance itself using formulaic phrases designed to fit together in a verse form. For example, Homer’s “the rosy-fingered dawn” or “the wine-dark sea” were carried over from such performances. The singer could customize these phrases by inserting words appropriate to the scene and the greater narrative. (For example the Genesis formula, “And God saw the ____, and it was good.”)

    Such performances would vary not only from singer to singer, but from performance to performance by the same teller. Sometimes a singer would forget to include a scene or a line, or improvise new lines to fit the audience or the occasion. Often singers would choose a word or a line for the way it fit the verse rather than for any specific thematic meaning. In Beowulf, for example, a stock formula mentions what beverage was served at a banquet–ale, beer, or mead. What controlled the choice was the alliterative pattern mandated by other words in the line. The name “Beowulf” in a key part of the line demanded “beer” in the beverage slot, for example.

    Once writing came along, scribes would naturally imitate the habits of the singers whose songs they were preserving. It seems plausible that Semitic singers of sacred stories would have employed composition strategies similar to those of other oral cultures.

    However plausible my idea may be, it is vulnerable to Ham’s question, “Were you there?” I must admit I was not.

  18. Were you there?
    The closest to being there when the Bible was composed, and who tell us what they think the text meant?
    There is this book which presents samples of interpretation from the Ancient Near East, the last couple of centuries BCE to the first couple of centuries CE:
    James L. Kugel
    The Bible As It Was
    Belknap Press, Harvard, 1997

  19. @Cynic is a bit worried: “It seems as if the people at AIG don’t have enough to do.”
    Even they get bored from endlessly repeating
    1. evolution is wrong;
    2. science can’t explain hence god;
    3. life looks designed hence god;
    4. the Universe is 6000 years old.

  20. Eric Lipps

    The real question is why, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he didn’t create everything all at once and know it was good without having to look it over.

  21. I’m no biblical scholar, but why can’t death be good? Does god ever say specifically that death isn’t good?

  22. Apoptosis – programmed cell death – is a normal part of multicellular life.