Xavier Pacheco

10/23/2008 1:15:04 PM #

Dear Xavier,
Good post. I'm eager to read your paper when it is ready. I hope you will explain the Hebrew word translated "day." I understand that it can also mean "epoch" or "era." (you're the Hebrew language expert!) And why do we fight about it anyway. Didn't the psalmist write that 1,000 years are like a day in thy sight, or like a watch in the night.
Blessings,
Al

Al

10/23/2008 1:44:26 PM #

Al,

"you're the Hebrew language expert!)", I'm only an expert at knowing I know very very little about Hebrew.  .  My mentor/professor is an expert, however, and I'm hoping pick his brain on that one.

With that, I believe there are several views on this. There is of course the 24-hour day view.  This view takes a literal idea of yom as as 24 hrs and carries some pretty strong scriptural support. Those arguing against this point how there could not have been a day since the sun was not created until day 4 (though God could have meant a day's time in creating the first three days I suppose). Other views are: day age whereas a day represents a long period of time. Arguing against this also point that it doesn't jive with science either (how do plants survive in day three with no sun - I suppose God sustains them otherwise, after all just like the young earthers claim, "My God is big enough to create the earth in 7 days" old-earthers can claim "My God is big enough to sustain plant life with no sun."  It's get rather silly. Ok, There are others, the Intermittent day view, the framework view, the revelatory view and I'm sure there's more. Have fun!

Xavier Pacheco

10/23/2008 6:01:02 PM #

The Lord certainly could have created the entire universe in six days. After all, he *spoke* it into existence. He could have created it with an "apparent history". He could have made dinosaur bones just as they appear in the soil, never having actually held up a living, breathing dinosaur. He has powers that we mere mortals can't even begin to comprehend.

Did he? ... I don't know. It certainly seems like a far-fetched thing to say, as we are all trained to find supporting evidence of our beliefs and dinosaur bones are pretty good evidence of the Earth once being full of living, breathing dinosaurs.

Ultimately does it matter? ... No.

God is sovereign. His word is the definition of true. Just because I may misunderstand or misinterpret it, has absolutely no effect on it. Where my feeble understanding ends, faith begins.

Now UFO's... they're real for sure.

Phillip

10/23/2008 7:59:17 PM #

Xavier, I highly recommend the book "Genesis 1-4" by C. John Collins as I think he does a great job of dealing with the textual/grammatical issues within the opening chapters of Genesis. I have been saying for sometime that Genesis is a "theology" and not intended to be a scientific treatise. Neither science or the Biblical text should be held hostage to the other and at different periods of history this has happened. If we look at how the rest of Hebrew Scripture and the Apostolic Scripture use the content of Genesis 1-4 we will see that they take from it theological constructs and not scientific dogma. I think Dr.Collins book has much to offer it's reader so I hope all will obtain a copy and give it a read. shalom, brent emery

brent emery

10/26/2008 3:05:03 PM #

As I read it, the biblical data offers a variety of options and does not necessarily intimate a young earth. The Hebrew terms meaning "to create" (bara) and "to make" (asah) are used interchangeably (Gen. 1:26, 27, 3 1). Both are used as either a direct or indirect act of God (cf., Zech. 10:1 where God makes the storm clouds which produce rain; also, Acts 14:17). Hence, God can create directly and immediately without respect to time or indirectly and mediately through time and from other created processes.

The Hebrew word for "day" (yom) used in Gen. 1:5, 8 can mean a literal twenty-four hour period (Ex. 20:11), a month (Gen. 29:14), one year (Lev. 25:4-7), or an extended time (Josh. 24:7; 2 Chron. 15:3; Ps. 90:4-6 [Note: Moses wrote Psalm 90!]; 2 Pt. 3:8). Problems of understanding "day" to mean a literal twenty-four hour period include insufficient time for: (1) Adam to become lonely before Eve was created (Gen. 2:18); (2) vegetation to produce for Adam to begin working the Garden (Gen. 2:15-16); (3) Adam to name all the animals (Gen. 2:19-22). Finally, Adam's surprise at first seeing the woman could be rendered "here now at last bone of" which may suggest a longer period than just twenty-four hours (Gen. 2:23).

Finally, Psalm 90:4 does indeed state that "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Given that Moses penned the creation account in Genesis as well as Psalm 90, it is reasonable to assume that "yom" may not mean a 24-hour period.

Just thinking...
Paul

Paul

10/26/2008 8:50:48 PM #

X,I must agree that the "day" we should be looking forward to --- regardless of how it's defined --- should be the day we find ourselves in Heaven with our Lord.  I'll let others battle (above or below the belt) on this one.

DR

Dan

10/29/2008 3:49:39 PM #

There are two things that make me think that literal days were intended when we read Genesis One. One thing within the immediate text and one from without. First, as has been noted in an earlier post the Hebrew word "Yom" (Day) can have quite a range of meaning all determined by the context. If the word "day" were the only textual consideration my next point would be moot. Within the text of Genesis One we have the two words "evening" and "morning" (Erev and Boqer respectively)used to define the parameters of the word "day". Whenever these words are used they generally indicate a literal evening (sun down) and a literal morning (sun up). Admittedly the language of "sun up and sun down" is phenomenilogical.
The second reason I am inclined toward a literal interpretation of the word "day" comes outside of Genesis One but points back to it. In Exodus 20:8-11 the text speaks of the Shabbat (seventh day) as a day set apart based on the Creation week. In other words the Creator gave us a model to follow in the way He worked six days and then rested on the seventh. If man is to follow His Creator then he too must work six literal days and rest on a literal seventh day. I suspicion that the average Israelite reading Genesis One and Exodus 20 thought of the days as literal days and not in some metaphorical fashion.
I do think that this does not address the age of man or the age of the earth directly. shalom, brent emery

brent emery

10/29/2008 10:03:20 PM #

Two comments for review here.

First, the concept of God creating the earth with the appearance of age is troubling. In essence, it says that God created creation looking other than it actually was (looking old actually being young). For the claim that God IS Truth, this gets very close to being a lie.

Second, it seems to me that most of the heat in the debate of creation and evolution comes from the Christian side. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction that anything that comes from secular thinking is automatically a lie and to be dismissed, challenged, reacted against. This is troubling on 2 levels:

First, except for creation/evolution, most Christians trust the secular world for just about every other aspect of their world view (they accept modern medicine which is good but also generally buy into materialism, business, and a laz-a-far approach to their holiness, if not consciously then at least functionally, which is bad).

Second, Satan is not an out and out liar; in fact, most of the time he speaks mostly truth with only enough falsehood to steer a person away from God. Look at Genesis 3, none of what he said was necessarily an out and out lie, but it did lead Eve to the wrong conclusion. Same thing I think with the evolution debate. From my examination, most of the facts presented by secular scientists are correct, but the overarching conclusion that they are lead to is wrong, that there is no God. Cannot we accept the facts (the universe is old, evolutionary mechanisms exists) and still affirm that God created it and is in control?

Bottom line is all of the discussion is that the secular scientitis’s reaction to Christians are expected, as non-Christians they do not have the love of Christ. Unfortunately, Christians who claim to have the truth and the love of Jesus are all too often are mean spirited and angry and in their actions deny the work of the one they claim to serve.

Sean Fry

10/31/2008 2:58:30 AM #

One of the books I will use for research in my paper is Genesis 1-4, A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins: http://tinyurl.com/6njedz

A review by Vern S. Poythress of the Westminster Theological Seminary is here: www.frame-poythress.org/.../...wCollinsScience.htm

-- x

Xavier Pacheco