any other light than day, and you would not understand any other darkness than night. For, if all light could be understood as "day" and all darkness considered under the name "night," there might not have been any need to say, "And God called the light day and he called the darkness night." 54.
27. Likewise we can ask what day and what night it means. If it wants us to understand the day that begins with the rising of the sun and ends with its setting, and the night that begins from the sun's setting and lasts until its rising, I find no way that these [days] could be before the lights of the heaven were made. Or could stretches of hours and times be spoken of in this way even without the distinction of light and darkness? And how could this change signified by the names, day and night, occur in that light of reason, if this is what is meant, or in that light of the senses? 55. Or are these mentioned, not according to what happened, but according to what can happen, since error can come into reason and dullness into the senses?
28. "And evening came and morning came, one day." 56. Scripture does not now speak of a day in the same sense as when it said, "And God called the light day." 57. Rather it speaks [of a day] in the same sense as when we say, for example, that a month has thirty days, for here we include under the name "day" the nights as well. Above it spoke of a day as separated from night. Therefore, when Scripture mentioned the work God did during the light, it said afterwards that "evening came and morning came, one day," that is, so that it is one day from the beginning of the day to the beginning of the day, that is, from morning to morning. We speak____________________