Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This may sound like a silly question at first, but I honestly can't decide for myself. I've always assumed that where the text says "And there was evening, and there was morning—the *n*th day" that this is the same day in which the events depicted in the preceding verse take place. E.g., God's actions in Gen.1:1-4 occurred on the 'first day' referred to in Gen.1:5.

But it occurred to me that Hebrew days begin at dusk. Therefore, might not the correct reading be that the events of Gen.1:1-4 take place, then Day One begins with evening and morning in line Gen.1:5? In this scenario the events of Day One are actually Gen.1:6-7 where God separates the waters above from the waters below.

So where precisely does the first day begin? The more times I read the verses, the more reasons I think of how either way might be justified, so I'm curios what the experts have to say.

share|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

If we translate the phrase וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר (vayhi erev vayhi boker) as:

  • "then there was evening; then there was morning"
  • "and there was evening; and there was morning"

then it reasons that 1) there was a time before the evening, and 2) Gen. 1:1-4 occur at that time before the evening.

The repeated refrain, "and evening came, and morning came," on each creative day suggests to some that the author is stating the order of the day. A few considerations should lay this argument to rest.

.....(1) The combination ערב ("evening") and בקר ("morning") is not equivalent to לילה ("nighttime") and יום ("daytime"), and in fact does not add up to a complete day, but amounts only to two lesser parts of one day. We cannot, therefore, understand the two-fold refrain as constituting some kind of summation of two parts of an entire day of creation.

.....(2) The appearance of the consecutive waw before the refrain suggests that the evening and morning are part of a sequence of events. We should not therefore understand them in isolation from the rest of the events mentioned on any given creative day. The sequence is as follows: (1) act or acts of creation; (2) evening; (3) morning. The evening clearly follows the creative activity that occurs during the day.

.....(3) If the evening follows God's creative acts on any given day, the evening cannot be the beginning of the day, but rather would be the concluding part of it. It is the morning that would signal the transition from one day to the next.

(Special thanks to an En Hakkore for bringing this to my attention.)


Miano, David. Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel. (Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 64). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. (11-12)

share|improve this answer
The "and" only re-iterates the "then". There was Evening (Darkness) before there was light. How long that first darkness was is debatable but those thereafter were certain periods of darkness as we know.! Yes there was time, but to restrict the first period of darkness to the length of the proceeding nights would be fallacious to the extent that God is not restricted by our assumptions. It is also possible that the period of time from the when the Spirit of God began to hover over the water, was only the same as the length of the nights proceeding. What difference does it make? – John Unsworth Nov 12 '13 at 10:02
@JohnUnsworth: Please see the citation in my edit. – Simply a Christian Nov 12 '13 at 17:31

You have a very interesting question, David. I am not an expert but only a continuing student of the scripture. My answer is solely based on the light of my understanding of other clear verses of scripture.

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. NKJV

Ex 20:11

11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. NKJV

The above verses, scripture covers the breadth of creation in the beginning: the heavens and the earth. To me, these clearly declare the whole act of creation happened in six days as we know them. This understanding is confirmed by other verses in scripture, e.g., Ex 24:16, 31:15, 35:2; Jo 6:3.

Creation started without light; then God gave light. To me, this perfectly fits the declaration that there was evening; then there was morning.

We might think how could God work when there was no light? We must remember that God himself is light (1 Jh 1:5). He created the light that humans need to work in his service; and, to see and enjoy the beauty of his creation.

That also perfectly fits the human condition: from darkness; and God's saving grace: to light:

1 Pe 2:9 that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; NKJV

So, to me, the first day began when scripture declared it in three simple words: in the beginning, i.e., Ge 1:1.

share|improve this answer

The creation account in Genesis is describing cosmic events in terms that ordinary men and women could understand. It is best taken as a straightforward historical account of the events of creation.

If this is the case, then the first day began at the start, the beginning. It couldn't start at the end of the day because this was the beginning of time.

The 'evening, morning, the nth day' is describing a normal conclusion of one day and the move to the next in the same way that we would say 'he slept on it, then the next day...' - the point of this phrase being to indicate a sequence of days over which the creation events took place, not to give a 'point in time'.

share|improve this answer

It might be helpful to separate "In the beginning" from day one because the universe is millions of years older that Bible account of Adam's chronology. Genesis 1:1 makes a statement of fact that in the beginning God created the earth. The Hebrew word for created is bara' (to create ex nihilo, from nothing. This includes the galaxies, the stars, our solar system and our planet. then Genesis 1:2 switches the discussion to our planet and points out its condition. Then in Gen1:3 the formation and arrangement of the earth is discussed the word bara' is not used in the rest of the chapter. Other words such as to make from existing matter (asah), to form (yatzar), and to ordain, establish, to appoint (kun) are used According to the bible-chronology this formation took place from 6,000 -10,000 years ago depending whether the Hebrew text of the LXX. that the earth was dark is attested by Job 38:9. So what happen when it says,"Let there be light" it's the removal of the dark clouds that were around the earth. The sun, moons and stars were already there. The Bible and science are compatible. What happens is that people tie Gen 1:1 to there rest of Genesis chap. one. Gen 1:1 uses the perfect tense which is completed action, Gen 1:3 uses the imperfect tense, which indicates ongoing action. So the six days of formation of earth happened millions of years later.

share|improve this answer
There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews were any more knowledgeable about the universe then the rest of the Mesopotamian cultures. There was no concept of a "universe" in that day and age. – seedy3 Nov 1 '15 at 21:45
Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Please consider registering an account to fully take advantage of what this site has to offer. Also, be sure to check out the site tour to learn what we are about... I think you've answered the question, but I'm not really seeing what your conclusion is. Can you better explain what these thoughts have to do with "When the first day of Genesis began"? – ThaddeusB Nov 1 '15 at 22:43

If light equals day, then a day is the period light. A day begins when light begins. A day ends when light ends. Evening and morning are part of a Day. Evening ends a day and morning begins a day. Darkness is the absence of light and is therefore not part of a day. It is stated that God "separated" the light from the darkness, calling the light "day", and calling the darkness "night". Where does it say that God "combined" the light and the darkness and called this combination a day? Yet this is the combination that we have been taught to accept.

share|improve this answer

protected by Community Nov 3 '15 at 14:52

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.