# Question about Genesis 1:6-8 (Second day)



## Bible Belt Presbyterian (Dec 9, 2012)

I have a question relating to the second day of creation and the fact that it is the only day of creation that Moses does not mention that "God saw that it was good." Although I figured it would have been discussed before, I was unable to find anything with a search. If it has been, could someone help with finding the thread, please.

On to the question. Is there any importance to this? Is there some symbolism that comes from the water and sky/Heaven, or from the act of separating the two of them? I don't think that it was seen as bad simply because scripture does not contain that phrase. This is due because all thing that God created glorify him and in that sense, are perfect. I have heard that it isn't said because Satan is the ruler/prince of the air and this is what God was creating that day but, how is Satan the ruler of it when it wasn't even created yet and sin had not yet entered the world?

I don't really view this with any importance, compared to the Gospel or doctrine. There may be nothing to it, but it was intriguing to me.


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2012)

Bible Belt Presbyterian said:


> I have a question relating to the second day of creation and the fact that it is the only day of creation that Moses does not mention that "God saw that it was good."



It is generally thought to be omitted because the specific reason for separating the waters was the bringing forth of dry land, the earth, and that was not completed until the third day; so the approbation was held off until that day.


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 9, 2012)

The Editors of Calvin's Commentary on Genesis in the Geneva Series by Banner of Truth have this footnote:

"The Septuagint here inserts the clause 'God saw that it was good'; but, as it is found neither in the Hebrew nor in any other ancient version, it must be abandoned. The Rabbis say that the clause is omitted, because the angels fell on that day; but this is to cut the knot rather than to untie it. There is more probability in the conjecture of Picherellus, who supposes that what follows in the ninth and tenth verses all belonged to the work of the second day, though mentioned after it; and in the same way, he contends that the formulation of the beasts, recorded in the 24th verse, belonged to the fifth day, though mentioned after it. Examples of this kind, of _Hysteron proteron_, are adduced in confirmation of this interpretation. See also Poole's Synopsis in loco."


----------



## Bible Belt Presbyterian (Dec 10, 2012)

Thank you both for that. I had not seen that opinion of it and it is very helpful.


----------

