OK, since you went and called me stupid, which is a personal attack at my very core and not the same as calling something I SAID stupid. Plus you called me an ass, well, it just seems that you are seething because of your poor writing. Let me treat you original post as if it were one of my student's papers that I correct, and you will see why a person could be uttery confused about what you write. Mind you, I don't think you are stupid, but I'm surprised if none of your teachers have counseled you on keeping things clear and simple. Writing complicated papers doesn't make you smarter or a better writer. In fact it is usually a sure sign that the writer is trying to purposely be complicated for the sake of being complicated. So here goes:
"The Priestly creation narrative really needs to be read without modern cosmological concepts" -
Due to the fact that the biblical story is what is in question, when you pose these things together, one expects you to say which one you believe is true. Are you saying that the Priestly narrative is true and that modern cosmological concepts are not, as any good Biblical apologist would say? It is important to let the reader know what your personal perspective is when you pose two opposing concepts together like that. There is nothing yet said that would indicate that you prefer modern cosmological concepts to the Biblical story. In fact the way it is worded "The preistly narrative really NEEDS to be read..." it sounds like you are coming to the rescue of the priestly narrative. Why not just say, "the priestly narrative, which of course is complete bull shit, needs to be..." After all, this thead is about whether it is physically POSSIBLE for the Biblical story to be TRUE. We are not talking about the merits of mythology as far as I am aware. So why rescue a creation narrative that is being wronged by misinterpretation when all we care about is whether the story could actually be TRUE? Considering your later explantion of your post, it's obvious that you were simply off topic. Could I be right in that?
"and in a translation that better represents the Hebrew (e.g. many English translations render the Hebrew words 'rts and shmym as "earth" and "heaven" in some verses and "land" and "sky" in other verses), otherwise it can be interpreted in a manner very different from what the author originally intended. -
Here you seem to be defending the Biblical narrative. What gave me that idea? It is because you seem to be wanting to make sense of it by clarifying original meanings of words. This is something that apologists do. Critics don't usually care about original nuances of words because it is a waste of time when all you really care about is if the thing is true. If it is not true taken on face value, or if you have to have an advanced degree to understand it, that too is just proof for the critic that the Bible is pure shite. Why in the world would we want to studyt a false book so diligently? Only if we were keen on the merits of mythology. But even if we loved mythology, why in the world would we need to do such close study of the meaning of words, if the thing is just a myth? I think we can really appreciate myths deeply for their merit without spending our lives examining rare definitions of words and learning original languages. It seems like a lot to do over myth. that is behavior one usually sees in Biblical apologists right? Why in the world would a Biblical critic care about a book they know to be a myth? It just doesn't make any sense. So, to prevent misunderstanding, why not just occasionally remind your dear readers that you believe this story to be a myth. saying that it needs to be "read without modern cosmological concepts' just doesn't tell us all you think it should. it really says nothing about your stance. A person who is critical of the Bible usually doesn't try to make sense of a story they know is complete myth. Myths don't need to make sense do they? So why are you trying to construct a story that makes sense? So far you still have not stated that you have any problem whatsoever with the truthfulness or factualness of the priestly story. In fact you are offering definitions of words that seem to lend credibility to the story.
"For example, the summary statement in v. 1 is often misconstrued as referring to a creation of heaven and earth prior to the creation of sky and land on the second and third days." -This also sounds like a defense. If it is all just a misunderstanding then maybe the Bible story is right, right? You still have not given your readers any indication towrds your position. You are speaking as if it is fact in fact.
The creation of light is what sets forth the rhythm of time, the temporal cycles of day and night. - Stated as a matter of fact, not myth.
Earth and heaven are then created in the next two days and then these three frames (day/night, heaven, earth) are populated in the final three days. - Stated as fact. Where do you indicate exactly that you disagree with any part of the Biblical narrative, I am still looking. By the way, I understand now the tense you are writing in. You are telling the story actually to us. But this is an inappropriate style to use when A) You are writing in a forum that is not formal, and B) when you don't indicate that you are writing in "story-telling mode. You switch from a communicative style to storytelling seemlessly, so that I am not even sure where one stopd and the other begins. This is not good for clear writing.
The luminaries are created to populate not only heaven but also the day and night. - Stated as fact by all appearances.
But light itself preexists even the creation of earth and heaven. - Fact
The sun is created to rule the day (v. 18), but day itself is already in existence. - Fact
From the point of view of ancient cosmology, this might reflect the fact that the sun isn't the only source of light during the day. -
While you say that it is from the point ofview of ancient cosmology, it comes off like a justification and defense of the Biblical truth. This is precisely in fact what some Biblical apologists, most noteworthily the WTBTS of New York. This is straight out of Paradise Lost in fact if I'm not mistaken. No wonder I thought you were trying to defend the truth of the Bible! You still have not made a single statement that you categorically deny the truth of the Bible story. You still are saying all the things I have heard apologists saying.
The blue sky seems to shine with its own light, which brightens when the sun makes its apperance in the morning and it cooperatively darkens when the sun makes its departure in the evening. -
stated as a fact that you personally believe! No wonder I thought you were crazy!
Even without the sun in the sky, a similar cycle of day and night is presumed to happen in the days preceding the creation of the sun. -
Not a smidgin of doubt expressed yet. It really still sounds to me like you believe this stuff. Even after I read your other explanation!
So before you go and call people stupid, take a look at your writing ability. You sound like more of a researcher than a writer. That's ok, I know a ton of them and they all think they can write because they know big words. But writing is its own thing. I would send this post back to a high school student with lots of red ink on it. You may have a lot of facts in your head, nothing wrong with that, but improving how you relate those facts might help you professionally. When a teacher can't understand what you mean, then that is proof positive you have a problem. Rule number one in writing: NEVER EVER BLAME THE READER FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU WRITE. If you failed to communicate to your readers, then... YOU failed, not the reader, no matter how stupid he is. Learn this and you will become a better writer. And of course I know you are already saying to yourself, "Well, other people understood me..." If that makes you feel like a better writerm then cool, go with it. Don't take anything I say seriously.
How were plants created before the Sun?
by elder-schmelder 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Shawn10538
-
Leolaia
BTW, if I sounded uncharacteristically harsh in my reply to Shawn10538, it is out of frustration from his repeated attempts to characterize me as an apologist trying to prove the Bible true when anyone who has really followed my posts knows that this is not the case at all. I asked him several times to peruse my post history to get a better handle on things. Had he done that he would have known that I have not been "cryptic" on the matter of Genesis 1, as he would have seen threads like http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/73734/1.ashx wherein I discussed the mythological background of the narrative (including parallels to the Enuma Elish, the Phoenician creation myth, and the Theogony of Hesiod).
I also forgot to address this:
No one really ever thought the sky lit up literally. So if you can't provide an actual document of the Bible writers actually saying that they think what you are saying they thought, it is just wild speculation on your part, and it is wreckless scholarship to try to sound authoritative when you are really just speculating wildly.
I have to ask: Shawn10538, are you just speculating wildly here that "no one really ever thought the sky lit up literally"? What are you basing that on? Just because I did not cite sources in my brief remark does not mean there weren't any, but Shawn10538's charge of recklessness on my part is surely based on his own assumption that no such sources exist. Sources from the OT and by other ancient writers that refer to the sky or firmament as having its own brightness:
Job 26:12-13: "Through his power the Sea was stilled, and by his understanding he smote through Rahab. By his wind/breath the heavens are brightened (b-rwchw shmym shprh), his hand pierces the fleeing serpent" (cf. the Chaoskampf theme in the Enuma Elish and the Baal Cycle and cf. the rwch of God in Genesis 1:2 hovering over the primeval watery deep).
Daniel 12:3: "The learned will shine as brightly as the vault of heaven (yzhrw k-zhr h-rqy`)".
Sirach 43:1: "The shining vault of heaven (stereóma kathariotétos ouranou) appears in a glorious spectacle as the splendor of the heights (gauriama hupsous eidos en hormati doxés)".
4Q403 1:41-44: "Sing to God, awesome in power, all you wise spirits of light, to exalt together the utterly brilliant vault of heaven (rqy` zw twhr thwrym) that girds his holy temple. Praise him, divine spirits, praising forever and ever the vault of the uttermost heaven (rqy` rwsh mrwmym), all its beams and walls, the work of its construction" (here the vault of heaven is described as brilliantly illuminated by the heavenly temple of God).
1 Enoch 17:4, 18:2, 3, 5: "And they led me away to the living waters and to the fire of the west (puros duseós), which provides all the sunsets (ho estin kai parekhon tas duseis tou héliou) ... I saw the four winds bearing the earth and the vault of heaven (stereóma tou ouranou). And I saw how the winds stretch out the height of heaven ... I saw at the ends of the earth the vault of heaven above (stérigma tou ouranou)" (the fiery coloration of the sky during sunsets is attributed to a special fire in the west).
1 Enoch 23:1, 4: "And from there I travelled to another place, to the west of the ends of the earth. And I saw a fire that ran and did not rest or quit its course ... This course of fire is the fire of the west (ho dromos tou puros to pros dusmas pur), which pursues all the luminaries of heaven (to ekdiókon estin pantas tous phósteras tou ouranou)".
Those are a few examples of writers referring to the dome of the sky (the vault of heaven) as being lit up and shining forth light.
-
Leolaia
Yes, I'm sorry for calling you stupid; I have grown really tired of you with your completely off-base "Leolaia is the biggest apologist on this board" criticisms which are untrue, as I have told you that many times. So while I shouldn't have called you stupid there is a real stupidity in some of what you write. I mean I am sometimes amazed at what you have said in rather mean-spirited terms about me which are sometimes the complete opposite of what I actually say.
"and in a translation that better represents the Hebrew (e.g. many English translations render the Hebrew words 'rts and shmym as "earth" and "heaven" in some verses and "land" and "sky" in other verses), otherwise it can be interpreted in a manner very different from what the author originally intended. -
Here you seem to be defending the Biblical narrative. What gave me that idea? It is because you seem to be wanting to make sense of it by clarifying original meanings of words. This is something that apologists do. Critics don't usually care about original nuances of words because it is a waste of time when all you really care about is if the thing is true.What utter crap, I can't believe you claim this. So a classics scholar who wants to better understand Plato shouldn't care about the original nuances of words? Look up any biblical scholarship by critics of all stripes, they all care about the language used in the text and how the text should be understood. Just like any Sumerian scholar would want to get their understanding of a Sumerian text right. Or a Mayan scholar with respect to a Mayan text. I was simply making a point that the word choices in English translations can obscure the meaning of the text.
"For example, the summary statement in v. 1 is often misconstrued as referring to a creation of heaven and earth prior to the creation of sky and land on the second and third days." -This also sounds like a defense. If it is all just a misunderstanding then maybe the Bible story is right, right? You still have not given your readers any indication towrds your position. You are speaking as if it is fact in fact.
Another ridiculous statement. I was saying nothing else than the literary function of that passage and how it is often misconstrued. Just because I'm interested in clarifying what the text says doesn't mean that I "believe in it". Your suggestion that I was treating it as a true story is imposed on my post by your own thinking. I wasn't commenting in this thread to indicate whether the "Bible story is right", I was trying to explain that most people misread the story itself by imposing modern knowledge on it. Similarly, if a Sumerian myth is misconstrued as attesting ancient astronauts flying in spaceships (as some people might do), then a Sumerian scholar would similarly want to explain what that text actually says. That doesn't mean that the Sumerian scholar believes that the myth is true!
From the point of view of ancient cosmology, this might reflect the fact that the sun isn't the only source of light during the day. -
While you say that it is from the point ofview of ancient cosmology, it comes off like a justification and defense of the Biblical truth. This is precisely in fact what some Biblical apologists, most noteworthily the WTBTS of New York. This is straight out of Paradise Lost in fact if I'm not mistaken. No wonder I thought you were trying to defend the truth of the Bible!How absurd can one get? I was talking about "the point of view of ancient cosmology". My very words. I wasn't talking about ancient cosmology as being "truth". Do you seriously think I believe in a flat earth with a solid domed vault of heaven with all the stars and moon and sun contained within? You just show yet again that you read an "apologist agenda" into anything I write, and I'm really sick of it.
The blue sky seems to shine with its own light, which brightens when the sun makes its apperance in the morning and it cooperatively darkens when the sun makes its departure in the evening. -
stated as a fact that you personally believe! No wonder I thought you were crazy!I did not describe that as what I personally believe, you read that into what I wrote yet again *sigh*. I was describing "the point of view of ancient cosmology". My words. If I was describing the point of view of a caveman in Ice Age France, I would not be talking about my own world view but that of the caveman. If I was talking about the point of view of a hungry squid pursuing its prey, I would not be describing my own desires and impusles. I would be talking about the damned squid!
Got it? Or should I give more examples?
If an English teacher is talking about the white whale in Moby Dick, don't assume that this teacher actually believes that the novel is historical truth. You don't even have to wonder about it.
If a literary critic instructs his or her undergraduate class to ponder the main themes in Star Wars, please don't assume that this is because this teacher is a believer of the truth of Star Wars as what really happened "long ago in a galaxy far, far away". You shouldn't even have to wonder about it.
And if Leolaia in this forum is trying to discuss the literary form and meaning of a story of text from the Bible, please don't assume that I am doing anything other than discussing the literary form and meaning of the text.
The lesson to you is this: Don't assume (hence my use of the word "ass", I think you know the expression). I mean, your assumption that I was a literal believer in Genesis 1 led you to think the most absurd thing -- that I actually thought the "CRAZY" notion (as you put it) that the sun was not responsible for the apparent brightness in the sky. See what can happen when you make assumptions? And don't think that I would preface every single post I write with a provisio about whether I accept the text as "truth" just so Shawn10538 won't jump to conclusions.
And for that matter, I am not interested in any more tit-for-tat. I am sure you will persist in reading anything I write through a "fundy apologist" lens anyway, and I don't have the time or patience to explain myself any better than I have already.
-
PrimateDave
Shawn, I can't believe you are attacking Leolaia on this topic. Her posts have been more than clear as well as her intentions. Believe me, she is no friend to the apologist. She shows quite eloquently how an accurate knowledge of the Bible using critical thinking skills and real Biblical Scholarship completely obliterates Jehovah's Witness "theology" and Fundamentalist Christian dogma in general.
Her original post clearly showed (at least it did to me) that the Priestly Creation story (do you know the Documentary Hypothesis, Shawn?) was written by someone without a modern, scientific understanding of how the Universe works. This could to lead one to the following conclusions:
1. This narrative is a piece of ancient literature. As pointed out in other posts, many scholars study ancient literature without making a religion out of their study, and the Bible is no exception.
2. It is a myth. Examining the details and nuances in a myth does not mean that one actually believes in said myth.
3. It should not be taken out of the context in which it was written. Instead of bringing preconceived ideas to the narrative like most religious people do, try to understand what is actually said, in the original language if at all possible and with the proper cultural context in mind.
4. The order of events and actions which occur in the narrative do not follow modern scientific understanding of the origins of the Universe, our solar system, and life on Earth, nor should they be construed to do so.
5. The narrative means what it says, and twisting its words to fit some fictitious chronology (7000 year "days") is not Biblical Scholarship, but wild speculation and pure conjecture.
It is far easier to save face when one merely asks a silly question to clarify a misunderstanding than when one goes on a verbal rampage to correct a perceived (and nonexistent) fault.
Dave -
Leolaia
Thanks PrimateDave for your comment.
I had come to a similar conclusion several years ago regarding the idea that the writers of Genesis did not realize that the sun was the source of the illumination of the atmosphere. I'm glad to see that you have reached a similar conclusion, as I have not seen this idea expressed elsewhere.
pseudoxristos....Yes the concept in the Priestly creation narrative is clearly that the separation of day and night (v. 3-5) precedes the creation of the luminaries themselves (v. 14-18), hence the references to morning and evening in v. 5, 8, 13. So morning and evening are not viewed as owing their existence to the sun -- they can exist without it. Hence the sun and moon are said to be created in order to rule the day (l-mmshlt h-ym) and night (cf. also Psalm 136:8-9), i.e. they take over and dominate these pre-existing periods of light and darkness, such that they serve as "signs" (l-'tt) or markers of day and night (v. 14). Elsewhere in the OT we find a spatial separation between light and darkness, each in its own "place" or "abode":
Job 38:12-13, 19-20: "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place (h-shchr mqmw), that it might take the earth by its edges....What is the way to the abode of light (yshkn 'wr)? And where ('y) does darkness reside (chshk mqmw)?"
Job 3:4-8: "Let that day become darkness (h-ywm h-hw' yhy chshk), let not God inquire after it from above, neither let the light shine upon it (twp` `lyw nhrh). Let darkness and black gloom (chshk-w-tslmwt) claim it ... And let thick darkness seize that night (h-lylh h-hw' yqchhw 'pl), let it not be included among the days of the year ('l ychd b-ymy shnh), let it not come into the number of the months (b-mspr yrchym) ... Let them curse it that banish the day ('rry ywm) who are ready to rouse up Leviathan (`rr lwytn)".
In the first text, the concept of separate abodes for light and darkness is related to the spatial metaphor in Genesis 1:4 regarding God's dividing (ybdl) the light from the darkness, resulting in separate temporal categories of day and night. Darkness resides in its own place, just as dawn has its own place. And when dawn appears, it takes the earth by its edges -- seizing the earth in one moment from east to west. This is not a concept of dawn being limited to the rising of a luminary in the east; it represents the simultaneous brightening of the whole vault of heaven between the horizons (the brightening of which may precede the rising of the sun disk). The first text refers to the created order, of distinct orderly divisions between light and darkness. In the second text, the author wishes for this order to be destroyed and for the world to revert to primeval chaos. Darkness would then intrude into the domain of day and even night itself would cease to be night when everything reverts to thick darkness. And when this happens, the rhythm of time, the succession of the days of the year, would also stop. Even the primeval chaos monster Leviathan returns to hold sway.
The separate existence of day with respect to the sun in P actually makes perfect sense if you consider the underlying Canaanite mythology. In Ugaritic texts, the sun goddess Shapsh (corresponding to the Hebrew male sun god Shamash) was distinct from the gods of dawn and dusk, Shahar and Shalem, who were the twin sons of the goddesses Asherah (also called Breasts) and Rahmay (Womb), the two consorts of El (whose penis was described as longer than the ocean). Rahmay is most likely the goddess Anat as she is otherwise called rchm "Womb" in KTU 1.6 II 27, 1.15 II 6, etc. The sun goddess Shapsh was described as caring for the boys while they suck at Asherah's nipples, and gifts were given to Shapsh at the time of their birth (KTU 1.23 II 25, I 53-54). The births of Shahar and Shalem are related in the Myth of the Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods and their function is as follows:
"The gracious gods delimit the day, sons of a single day, who suck the nipples of the breasts of the lady, one lip to the earth and the other lip to the heavens. Into their mouths enter the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea when they stand from delimitation to delimitation" (KTU 1.23 I 62-70).
So here we have two gods who together mark out the day, one bringing forth the dawn and the other bringing the day to an end. They are construed as standing at the edges of the world and rising up from the horizon to the zenith of heaven -- into whose mouths the birds fly at the height of heaven and the fish swim at the bottom. This poetic description is reminiscent of the vault of heaven described in Hebrew literature, with the horizontal horizon in the east or west forming the bottom lip and the upper lip arching up to heaven -- resulting in open mouths in the east and west.
The ancient Israelites probably had a myth related to this one because there are echoes of it in the OT. The archaic Blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49 presents a series of traditional epithets and qualities pertaining to El which laconically associate him with Breasts and Womb: "His hands were made strong by the Bull of Jacob ('byr y`qb), by the strength of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel, by El your Father ('l 'byk) who helps you, by Shaddai (shdy) who blesses you, with also the blessings of the Heavens from above, the blessings of the Deep crouching below (thwm rbtst tcht), and the blessings of Breasts and Womb (shdym-w-rchm)" (v. 24-25). The pair of Heaven and the Deep occurs in another archaic text (Deuteronomy 33:13), and recalls the primeval Deep in Genesis 1:2 and the derivation of Heaven from it in v. 6-8, as well as the gods Shahar and Shalem in the Gracious Gods myth whose open mouths rise from the ocean up to the heavens.
Another important text is Psalm 110 which is thought by some to be a Yahwistic version of an older liturgy of the Jebusite priesthood in Jerusalem. This text is rich with resonances with Canaanite myth. Verse 3 makes reference to the "womb of the dawn" (rchm m-shchr) as the source of power on the day of battle, and this corresponds to Anat being the Womb (Rahmay) of Shahar (Dawn) in Canaanite myth. Anat was the goddess of war in Canaanite myth and the bloody description of battle in v. 5-7 is similar to that given with repect to Anat in KTU 1.3 II 3-30 (that there were cultic sites for Anat in Israel can be found in such toponyms as Beth-Anath in Joshua 19:38, Judges 1:33). Moreover the same liturgy makes reference to the "order of Melchizedek" at Jerusalem (v. 4), and this is a reference to the Canaanite priest of El-Elyon in Genesis 14 who resided in the city of Salem. The evidence is indeed suggestive that Jerusalem was originally a cultic site for both El and his son Shalem (Dusk), the brother of Shahar in the Gracious Gods myth. The name Jerusalem, first attested in Akkadian texts as early as the 19th century BC as Urusalimmu, originally meant "city of Shalem", and interestingly in KTU 1.23 II 1-4 the gracious gods Shahar and Shalem "have provided a city on high (ytnm qrt l'ly) in the steppe-land, on the barren hilltops", which may not necessarily be a reference to Jerusalem per se, but which shows that Shahar and Shalem were both associated with a cultic city on a hilltop. So Psalm 110 appears to associate Jerusalem with Anat/Rahmay (Womb), Shahar (Dawn), and indirectly (through Melchizedek) with the gods Shalem and El. Jerusalem's connection with Shalem is also evident in the names early associated with the city such as Solomon (shlmh) and Absalom ('bshlwm "Shalem is My Father"). Moreover the Assyrian god Shalman was also identified with Shalem (e.g. one early text, EA 290:16, refers to Jerusalem as Bit-Shulmanu "House of Shalman") and certain Assyrian texts refer to Shalman's consort Shalmanitu as the "Ishtar of Jerusalem". Although the relationship between texts is not entirely clear, the wooing in Canticles between slmh (1:1, 5, 7; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11-12) and a bride called "the maid of Shulamit" (shwlmyt) has led some to suspect that this text may draw on an older hierogamic liturgy concerning Shalman/Shalem and his consort Shalmanitu/Shalmit (cf. also the erotic language in the Gracious Gods myth and in the Dumuzi-Inanna Marriage Liturgy). The reference to Shalmanitu as the "Ishtar of Jerusalem" makes sense because Shalman was identified with the netherworld god Dumuzi/Tammuz, whose consort was Inanna/Ishtar, and we know that the death of Tammuz (who possibly represented the seasonal chthonic aspect of Baal) was mourned in Jerusalem by worshippers according to Ezekiel 8:14.
There are a few more echoes of Shahar and Shalem in the OT. Shahar occurs as a theophoric element in various names: Zareth-Shahar ("Shahar is Brightness") in Joshua 13:19, Ahishahar ("My Brother is Shahar") in 1 Chronicles 7:10, and Shehariah ("Yah is Shahar") in 1 Chronicles 8:26. The use of Shalem as a theophoric element was noted earlier with respect to the names of people early associated with Jerusalem (e.g. Solomon ("Belonging to Shalem", Absalom "Shalem is My Father"). The traditional mythological motifs underlying Isaiah 14 have been recognized for a long time (e.g. the Rephaim residing in Sheol, the references to Elyon at the "holy mountain" and the "stars of El", etc.) and the most famous of these is the "Morning Star, son of Dawn" (hyll bn-shchr), i.e. Helel son of Shahar. This is thought to represent a theogony of the morning star (Venus) as the offspring of Shahar (who in turn was the offspring of Womb), and the tale of hubris is commonly thought to reflect the observational fact that neither the morning nor the evening star rises very high into the sky (unlike the other "stars of El") until it falls back down to the horizon (i.e. to Sheol). The Ugaritic texts unfortunately only relate the birth of Shahar and not his marriage to a divine consort and fathering of the morning star. The materials in the OT however also suggest that some regarded Dawn as feminine, analogous to Eos or Aurora in Greco-Roman mythology. Such a view would render traditional phrases like "womb of dawn" as referring not to Anat but to a feminine Shahar. Some references to a personified Dawn in the OT are clearly feminine. Canticles 6:10 compares the beauty of the woman gazing forth as "lovely like the Dawn (kmw shchr yph)", and the metaphor of the "eyelids of Dawn" (`p`py shchr) in Job 3:9, 41:10 are almost certainly feminine, but it is very hard to tell how much these figures of speech incorporate traditional mythological material. Two additional references which seem rooted in tradition are the early morning singing of hymns in Psalm 108:2 in order to "rouse the Dawn" ('`yrh shchr) and the allusion to the "wings of Dawn" (knpy shchr) in Psalm 139:9 by which one can "reach the most distant parts of the sea" (b'chryt ym).
So although P endeavored to present a demythologized account of creation (e.g. creation as mere work rather than Chaoskampf, the sun and moon as mere luminaries rather than gods, sea monsters being mere creatures rather than the uncreated chaos, etc.), there is a possibility that the concept of day having an independent existence from the sun might have something to do with the older mythological concept of the gods of Dawn and Dusk as separate from the sun goddess and being themselves responsible for delimiting the day.