Randy Alcorn: Do You Believe God Created the Earth in Six Literal 24-hour Days?
In a recent post… HERE… Man of Spin has recently posted on the context of Christian leaders, lay-people, and Evolution, where the comment was made that there is not a monolithic perspective of this in Evangelical Christianity!
Randy Alcorn is a well-known and heavily publishing Christian author in both fiction and non-fiction contexts. Recently Alcorn posted the above question, going on to piece his own perspective on this point, which began with the following words… after the non-moving picture of the man…
First let me say that many sincere people believe in the Bible and also believe in an old earth. They do this via the gap theory or day age theory or some other means of interpretation.
Secondly, let me say that I am not certain about the age of the universe, the age of the earth, or when the first humans walked the earth. I have read very persuasive scientific arguments for an old earth, and have read some counterarguments that may have merit. I don’t feel qualified scientifically to make the judgment.
To read the meat of this post, which I am sure you are going to be desiring to do… Go HERE!
Do you agree?
For the Fame of His Name
Man of Spin
[...] See the rest here: bChristian News/b New Zealand » Blog Archive » Randy Alcorn: Do You b…/b [...]
Without going into the details of the question the age of the earth, Looking at Randy Alcorn’s post, his position seems based on two false dichotomies , firstly that Genesis 1-11 can only be interepreted in two ways – either in a (pseudo-)literalistic free of any figures of speach, analogy or hyperbole or it is merely regarded as poetical or allegory. Secondly and relatedly, the impression is given that to reject the young earth creationist interpretation of the days of Creation entails also rejecting the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first created humans and all that implies.
While there certainly are Christians that regard the Creation account as just poetical or allegorical and don’t assume the historicity of Adam and Eve, this is far from being the only alternative position on the Biblical account of creation. I would suspect that Alcorn’s primary source of information on old earth interpretations is young earth creationist literature which regular present ‘straw-man’ versions not representative of the views actually held by old earth proponents, and conflate issues such that disagreement over the age of the earth is deemed as meaning disaggreement over the historicity of Adm and Eve and the inspiration of Scripture.
I agree wholeheartedly with Randy Alcorn’s assessment of the Bible’s teaching of a literal six-day creation not being compatible with millions (billions) of years. I have been researching this topic for over 30 years, and I find absolutely no warrant, either biblical or scientific to take Genesis as metaphorical and thereby accomodate it to the long-age paradigm of evolution (certainly not from the very dubious evidence based on radiometric dating, which has been known to be out by millions of years), other than what theistic evolutionists mistakenly do; namely, to discount the teaching of a recent (young) and functionally mature universe ex nihilo (out of nothing) by special (fiat) creation of God in order to accomodate the teaching in Genesis 1 to the long-age paradigm of evolution; in short, to allow scientific opinion to become a hermeneutical basis for re-interpreting the plain language (even to them) of scripture (Genesis 1) Dr. James Barr, formerly Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University and recognized as one of the world’s leading OLd Testament Hebrew scholars, wrote, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages, states, “Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of genesis.” Professor John Currid writes, “There is no indication of figurative language in Genesis 1. If the narrative is to be considered imagery, one would expect to encounter many of the essentials of figurative language (i.e. schema, methapor, and other tropes), bur there are none. Rather, the first 11 chapters of it are written as historical narrative much the same way that I and 2nd Chronicles are written. That is, they are theological interpretations of the actual states of affairs that have occurred in the space-time cosmos.
Of course, there is plenty of evidence that our earth is not 4.5 billion years old. These evidences (though not all) include the following: historical records, population growth (this is an example of proof from mathematical statistics for a young earth), the helium content in the world, the missing neutrinos from the sun, the oscillation period of the sun, the rate of decay and reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, limited number of supernovas, radioactive polonium halos in granites, the mitochondrial DNA pointing to one mother, recession rate of the moon, very low accululation of lunar dust, increase in genetic diseases, the presence and age of comets in our solar system, amount of salt and sediments in the ocean and world’s major rivers, present rate of the erosion of continents, etc. There are several good reference books on these topics, for example, “It’s A Young World After All” by Paul D. Ackerman; “The Young Earth”.
If you read your Bible, it is very obvious that disagreement over the age of the earth (millions of years) makes havoc out of the Bible’s teaching of the historicity of Adam and Eve, and is clearly an attack on the inspiration of Scripture ( and creationists’ interpretations have nothing to do with it). Let’s take the idea that God took a 1000 years to create Adam by evolutionary processes (natural selection , mutation), you know what theistic evolutionists take out of context; namely, “a thousand years is like a day” (never mind, that the second part “and a day like a thousand years,” cancels out the first part, showing how much God can accomplish in far less time than we). If this is so-that “one day is as a 1000 years” (never mind millions of years), what happened when God created Eve–did he need a 1000 years to create her (through evolution) from adam’s rib? Moreover, did he have to wait a 1000 years before he could have fellowship with Adam and Eve, which He did? Presumably not, as Adam died at 930 years according to scripture. Yet, we have to be consistent if we are going to make sense out of the intended meaning of scripture in its biblical ,historical context. Enough of this nonsense. Supernatural Creation (ex nihilo) is diametrically opposite to evolutionary processes(development) from some ape-like creature ( and ultimately from one common ancestor over eons of time).
Moreover, the Bible tells us that Adam was created on day 6 (Genesis 1:26), that he lived through day 6 and day 7 , and died when he was 930 years old–which means the creation days could not have been millions of years. Such interpretation makes absurdity out of the plain meaning of scripture. Again, take the plain meaning of Exodus 20:8-11. God’s pattern of creation according to scripture forms the blueprint or basis for of our work week of six literal days, in which the plural Hebrew form of days used here (“yamin”) for “days” in verse 11 always refers in the Old Testament to a literal 24-day ( and that 845 times). In other words, God established a blueprint for our lives, six days of work and one day of rest, based on the same pattern as creation. How could God say it more plainly? It makes complete nonsense of the obvious meaning of scripture to have each work day equal millions/ billions of years according to the uniformitarian evolutionary time frame.
There is no “testable, repeatable, observable phenomena” on the origin of the universe. All dating methods are based on fallible assumptions , and a majority contradict the secular dates anyway. How do they know that Genesis 1 is describing multiple and/or sequential indefinite periods of time? They might get such an idea from Astronomer Hugh Ross, whose skewed and strained “progressive creationist” (billions of years) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation has been biblically, comprehensively, and scientifically ( no straw-dummy arguments I assure you) refuted with brilliant clarity by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in his newest and “must-read” book “Refuting Compromise”. But they certainly do not develop such a position from scripture. If death and struggle (the tooth and claw of evolution) were here eons before Adam sinned and which first brought death into the world accordind to scripture–(Romans 5:12; Genesis 3), as evolution requires, this clearly means that God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31) had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin , as scripture plainly declares (Romans 5:12, Genesis 3). This means that Christ’s death (for sin) and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the plain biblical teaching (i.e. Romans 8; Rev. 21) of the final restoration of this fallen world to the original state before the Fall–no sin, no curse, no death– is sheer nonsense. And someone affirms that this does not disagree with the historicity and doctrine of the inspiration of scripture? You got to be kidding!
In short, evolutionary teaching, especially theistic evolution, denies this creation-Fall-redemption paradigm, which is everywhere affirmed in both Old and New Testaments and is the revelational and historical foundation which makes the saving Gospel of Christ “Good News” and meaningful. The “Good News” becomes “Bad News” if Adam and the Fall are not historic figures and events.The apostle Paul built his theology on the historicity of Adam and the Fall (1 Corinthians 15: 22-58; Romans 5; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) and Jesus predicated marriage on the historical truth of the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve–the first humans, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), and not an evolutionary development from some race of hairy anthropids (ape-like men/women). When Jesus referred to marriage, instituted by God, and the creation of Adam and Eve, he accepted both as historical fact (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6).
Moreover,this is not a fringe view. Many noted scholars, including Oxford fellow Dr. John Lennox, hold that Genesis is real history, denying both chemical and biological “macro-evolution”–that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor. If scripture itself treats the creation and Fall of Adam as historical event, there is no warrant for treating the rest of the creation narrative as symbolism, allegory or other literary device–and that includes modern scientific opinion (i.e. based on radiometric dating), which is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis or any portion of scripture. Science has been wrong before on many things. Christians do not discount the findings of fallible scientists (they should be thrilled about such) but that does not mean that they place such findings above the historicity and inspiration of scripture when such findings disagree with the plain teaching of God’s infallible, inspired Word.
The previous couple of posts illustrate rather well my earlier contentions of false dichotomies (Genesis account either pseudo literal or allegorical/poetic, Young Earth Creationism or denial of the historicity of Adam) and straw man arguements.
While the idea that the the Days of Creation were each 1000 years was quite popular in the early Church (long before scientific considerations…) this is hardly representative of contemporary Old earth creationism and Rayburne’s arguements on this basis irrelevant.
It should be noted that many old earth interpretations of the creation in Genesis do not dispute whether the days of Genesis were 24 hours but rather whether the outworking of God’s Fiats of Creation was confined to the days (eg. the Fiat-Parentheses interpretation).
Rayburne’s quotation of Dr James Barr is somewhat ironic considering that Barr was a prominant critic of Biblical inerrancy and the implication he intended was rather different from what Rayburne intends.
Amongst other dubious claims Rayburne repeats probably the most common ‘proof’ that the days of Genesis must be 24 hours, by claiming using Exodus 20:8-11 that since the 6 days of the ordinary followed by a Sabbath are each 24 hours the creation days must also be 24 hours, however this would be a case of misplaced dogmatism as if he is to claim a direct correspondence rather than a analogy between the creation and the ordinary week to be consistent he would need to argue that people work and rest in the same way that God does. This is quite incompatible with an orthodox view of God (New Agers and Mormons who think they are actualizing their godhood might beg to differ). Furthermore the describing of God resting on the seventh day in Genesis seems to be an anthropomorphism, which would suggest that the days demarking God’s activity should also be regarded as anthropomorphisms. The consistent reading of Exodus 20:8-11 is that the ordinary week is analogous not identical to the creation week this is further supported by the fact that a pattern of six years followed by a Sabbath year was also instituted.
The argument based on world population growth is one of the most superficial (and actually un-Biblical) evidences for a young earth. Many careless young earth proponents extrapolate current population growth back to either 2 (Adam and Eve) or 8 (Noah and family) only a few thosand years ago supposedly matching the traditional (Bishop Ussher’s) date for the creation or flood. While this might superficially look impressive when one checks the predictions for population with other events in the Bible such as the Tower of Babel and Exodus, the extrapolation looks untenable (the current population growth is not typical of earlier time periods).
I certainly wouldn’t be rcommending “It’s A Young World After All” by Paul D. Ackerman, which was a bit of a shocker (even by young earth creationist standards) in terms of misunderstood and misrepresented science. Most of Ackerman’s evidences were nonsense when he wrote the book and others (such as the missing neutrinos) soon became redundant. Ackerman’s background was psychology not the physical sciences and his book was relient (as he acknowledged) on the ‘evidences’ suggested by other young earth creationists (who themselves weren’t specialised in the relevant fields). This is not uncommon with young earth proponents not knowing much about science but ‘knowing they are right’ and hence feeling justified to make dogmatic assertions without having carefully examined the matter. This ignorant arrogance is not a new phenomenon as St. Augustine of Hippo noted (circa. 415):
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ‘The Literal Meaning of Genesis’, John Hammond Taylor translation)
I have heard all these arguments before, Phillip, which are not arguments at all, just semantics and so much philosophical tiddlewinks or mumble jumbo, to try to skirt the real issues at hand. For example: here are some examples Phillip gives:
“While the idea that the the Days of Creation were each 1000 years was quite popular in the early Church (long before scientific considerations…) this is hardly representative of contemporary Old earth creationism and Rayburne’s arguements on this basis irrelevant.
Phillip’s contention that the popular notion in the early church (long before scientific considerations) of the days of creation not being representative of contemporary old earth creationism renders my arguments irrelevant is again nonsense and just some philosophical babble to skirt the real issue. Clearly, I did not mention the early church (whether or not they held this view that the days of creation were each a thousand years). I was giving an illustration ( call it a hypothetical argument) based on a verse from scripture that some use out of context (“one day is as a 1000 years”)to show that such a view is clearly not compatible with the biblical language of Genesis taken in its biblical context–which is why I said, “If this is so-that ‘one day is as a 1000 years’ (never mind millions of years), what happened when God created Eve–did he need a 1000 years to create her (through evolution) from adam’s rib? Moreover, did he have to wait a 1000 years before he could have fellowship with Adam and Eve, which He did? Presumably not, as Adam died at 930 years according to scripture. Yet, we have to be consistent if we are going to make sense out of the intended meaning of scripture in its biblical,historical context. Contemporary Old earth creationism based on scientific opinion, itself very dubious when it comes to dating of the age of the earth (i.e. Radiometric dating)do not alter the plain language and meaning of Genesis in its biblical historical context or render my argument irrelevant. Now if Phillip wants to allegorize the plain language of the verses above, as many do, by reading into(eisogesis, not exegesis of the text)them “millions of years” based on scientific opinion in order to make them say what they do not say, then the onus is on him to show consistency and coherence in the meaning of these verses in their biblical text (which obviously he has not done). Not surprisingly, Astronomer Hugh Ross does the same thing in his progressive creationist views of the days of Genesis, which is why I respectfully asked the reader to get a copy of Dr.
Jonathan Sarfati’s newest and “must-read” book “Refuting Compromise, in which he biblically, comprehensively, and scientifically ( no straw-dummy arguments I assure you) refutes with brilliant clarity
Ross’s skewed and strained “progressive creationist” (billions of years) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
Phillip says: “Rayburne’s quotation of Dr James Barr is somewhat ironic considering that Barr was a prominant critic of Biblical inerrancy and the implication he intended was rather different from what Rayburne intends.”
That fact that Dr. James Barr was not a believer and indeed a prominent critic of biblical inerrancy (in other words, what you call a “hostile witness”) makes his statement all the more credible since he was putting his reputation as a renown Hebrew scholar on the line in making such a statement, and contrary to Phillip, Dr. Barr did not imply something altogether different from what he wrote, as Phillip says. He was simply recognizing what he and reputable professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities believe the writer (s) of Genesis I-11 clearly intended to teach; namely, that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience according to the Hebrew rendering of “day” (Yom) in each of the days of Genesis 1 in the biblical text. James Barr was simply being honest in his statement; he certainly had nothing to gain by such a statement; indeed, as I have indicated, he had a great deal to lose, as he put his reputation as a Hebrew scholar( and a critic of biblical inerrancy) on the line in doing so.
Phillip says: “Amongst other dubious claims Rayburne repeats probably the most common ‘proof’ that the days of Genesis must be 24 hours, by claiming using Exodus 20:8-11 that since the 6 days of the ordinary followed by a Sabbath are each 24 hours the creation days must also be 24 hours, however this would be a case of misplaced dogmatism as if he is to claim a direct correspondence rather than a analogy between the creation and the ordinary week to be consistent he would need to argue that people work and rest in the same way that God does”
With all respect to Phillip’s contention, New Agers and Mormons included, Exodus 20:8-11 is certainly not the “most common proof” of any analogy between the creation days and the ordinary week. I already established that world renown Hebrew scholar, Dr. James Barr and professors of world-class universities all believe that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” (Phillip did not mention Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages) and “the plural Hebrew form of days used here (“yamin”) for “days” in verse 11 in Exodus 20:8-11 always refers in the Old Testament to a literal 24-day ( and that 845 times). So Philip’s argument against any analogy or direct correspondence between the days of creation and those of our ordinary week depending showing that people work and rest in the same way that God does is itself just another straw-dummy argument and is irrelevant unless he can show that “day” (Hebrew “Yom”) in each of the days of Genesis 1 is not an ordinary 24-hour day and the plural “days” (Hebrew “yamin”) in verse 11 of Exodus 20:8-11, referring to the creation days of Genesis 1, do not mean an ordinary 24-hour day, but eons or ages equivalent to millions/billions of years. Moreover, he would have to refute world acclaimed Hebrew scholarship to do so, and also need to show that such interpretation based on reading millions/billions of years into the text is coherent and consistent with the rest of the biblical text–quite a task, even for Philip.
“the extrapolation looks untenable (the current population growth is not typical of earlier time periods).
The extrapolation from current population growth for a young earth (whether typical of earlier time periods or not) is far more tenable than that of uniformitarian evolution based on millions/billions of years,and which assumes wrongly that the present is the key to the past ( no cataslymic destruction of the world’s population by a global flood, no scattering of the then world’s population at Babel and no Exodus ).
Philip says, “Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”
Yes, Philip and it also is a disgraceful and dangerous things for a Christian to hear an infidel, be he a scientist or theologian, using scientific opinion as a hermeneutical basis for giving the meaning of Holy scripture, making havoc and absurdity out of the plain meaning of scripture, and we (Christians) should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in spiritual understanding of the scriptures and laugh it to scorn.” Remember, spiritual understanding of what the scriptures teach (though not opposed to true science) comes through the Spirit of truth (revealed by God), not through scientific consensus or opinion.
Philip says, “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason.”
Again, the contention is that scientists and theologians, presumably Old earth scientists,uniformitarian evolutionists and those Christians and theologians who agree with them (theistic evolutionists) are wiser than those who accept Genesis 1-11 as factual history, whether or not they believe the scriptures to be true (false teachers abound in our churches and pulpits today) and despite the fact that theistic evolution, as I have indicated, clearly
“denies the creation-Fall-redemption paradigm, which is everywhere affirmed in both Old and New Testaments and is the revelational and historical foundation which makes the saving Gospel of Christ “Good News” and meaningful. The “Good News” becomes “Bad News” if Adam and the Fall are not historic figures and events.The apostle Paul built his theology on the historicity of Adam and the Fall (1 Corinthians 15: 22-58; Romans 5; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) and Jesus predicated marriage on the historical truth of the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve–the first humans, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), and not an evolutionary development from some race of hairy anthropids (ape-like men/women). When Jesus referred to marriage, instituted by God, and the creation of Adam and Eve, he accepted both as historical fact (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6).
Finally, Philip’s castigation “It’s A Young World After All” by Paul D. Ackerman and creation scientist and theologians in general who accept the Genesis narrative of creation as factual history is all to typical of those who turn to ad hominem attacks when they can’t refute the evidence–which is strikingly absent, both from scripture and from science, in support of Philip’s philosophical assertions (mostly straw-dummy arguments). Undoubtedly, he would include in the class of those who are ignorant, unlearned, reckless ad incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture, such distinguished and respected young earth scientists as Dr. John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. in
geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and the chief developer of the Terra code, a 3-D finite element program for modelling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere, also currently a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) committee and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research, Or
Dr Jonathan Sarfati , whose Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’ and has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. What about Dr. Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University who studied under Professor Steven J. Gould, considered the world’s leading evolutionist, and would strongly disagree with uniformitarian evolutionary geologists concerning gradual processes over millons of years of uniformitarian geology to explain the age of the earth. So much for ignorance, unlearned men, and reckless ad incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture, right Philip?
I have heard all these arguments before, Phillip, which are not arguments at all, just semantics and so much philosophical tiddlewinks or mumble jumbo, to try to skirt the real issues at hand. For example: here are some examples Phillip gives:
“While the idea that the the Days of Creation were each 1000 years was quite popular in the early Church (long before scientific considerations…) this is hardly representative of contemporary Old earth creationism and Rayburne’s arguements on this basis irrelevant.
Phillip’s contention that the popular notion in the early church (long before scientific considerations) of the days of creation not being representative of contemporary old earth creationism renders my arguments irrelevant is again nonsense and just some philosophical babble to skirt the real issue. Clearly, I did not mention the early church (whether or not they held this view that the days of creation were each a thousand years). I was giving an illustration ( call it a hypothetical argument) based on a verse from scripture that some use out of context (“one day is as a 1000 years”)to show that such a view is clearly not compatible with the biblical language of Genesis taken in its biblical context–which is why I said, “If this is so-that ‘one day is as a 1000 years’ (never mind millions of years), what happened when God created Eve–did he need a 1000 years to create her (through evolution) from adam’s rib? Moreover, did he have to wait a 1000 years before he could have fellowship with Adam and Eve, which He did? Presumably not, as Adam died at 930 years according to scripture. Yet, we have to be consistent if we are going to make sense out of the intended meaning of scripture in its biblical,historical context. Contemporary Old earth creationism based on scientific opinion, itself very dubious when it comes to dating of the age of the earth (i.e. Radiometric dating)does not alter the plain language and meaning of Genesis in its biblical historical context or render my argument irrelevant. Now if Phillip wants to allegorize the plain language of the verses above, as many do, by reading into these verses(eisogesis, not exegesis of the text)“millions of years” based on scientific opinion in order to make them say what they do not say, then the onus is on him to show consistency and coherence in the meaning of these verses in their biblical text (which obviously he has not done). Not surprisingly, Astronomer Hugh Ross does the same thing in his progressive creationist views of the days of Genesis, which is why I respectfully asked the reader to get a copy of Dr.Jonathan Sarfati’s newest and “must-read” book “Refuting Compromise, in which he biblically, comprehensively, and scientifically ( no straw-dummy arguments I assure you) refutes with brilliant clarity Ross’s skewed and strained “progressive creationist” (billions of years) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
Phillip says: “Rayburne’s quotation of Dr James Barr is somewhat ironic considering that Barr was a prominant critic of Biblical inerrancy and the implication he intended was rather different from what Rayburne intends.”
That fact that Dr. James Barr was not a believer and indeed a prominent critic of biblical inerrancy (in other words, what you call a “hostile witness”) makes his statement all the more credible since he was putting his reputation as a renown Hebrew scholar on the line in making such a statement, and contrary to Phillip, Dr. Barr did not imply something altogether different from what he wrote, as Phillip says. He was simply recognizing what he and reputable professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities believe the writer (s) of Genesis I-11 clearly intended to teach; namely, that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience according to the Hebrew rendering of “day” (Yom) in each of the days of Genesis 1 in the biblical text. James Barr was simply being honest in his statement; he certainly had nothing to gain by such a statement; indeed, as I have indicated, he had a great deal to lose, as he put his reputation as a Hebrew scholar( and a critic of biblical inerrancy) on the line in doing so.
Phillip says: “Amongst other dubious claims Rayburne repeats probably the most common ‘proof’ that the days of Genesis must be 24 hours, by claiming using Exodus 20:8-11 that since the 6 days of the ordinary followed by a Sabbath are each 24 hours the creation days must also be 24 hours, however this would be a case of misplaced dogmatism as if he is to claim a direct correspondence rather than a analogy between the creation and the ordinary week to be consistent he would need to argue that people work and rest in the same way that God does”
With all respect to Phillip’s contention, New Agers and Mormons included, Exodus 20:8-11 is certainly not the “most common proof” of any analogy between the creation days and the ordinary week. I already established that world renown Hebrew scholar, Dr. James Barr and professors of world-class universities all believe that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” (Phillip did not mention Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages) and “the plural Hebrew form of days used here (“yamin”) for “days” in verse 11 in Exodus 20:8-11 always refers in the Old Testament to a literal 24-day ( and that 845 times). So Philip’s argument against any analogy or direct correspondence between the days of creation and those of our ordinary week depending on showing that people work and rest in the same way that God does is itself just another straw-dummy argument and is irrelevant unless he can show that “day” (Hebrew “Yom”) in each of the days of Genesis 1 is not an ordinary 24-hour day and the plural “days” (Hebrew “yamin”) in verse 11 of Exodus 20:8-11, referring to the creation days of Genesis 1, do not mean an ordinary 24-hour day, but eons or ages equivalent to millions/billions of years. Moreover, he would have to refute world acclaimed Hebrew scholarship to do so, and also need to show that such interpretation based on reading millions/billions of years into the text is coherent and consistent with the rest of the biblical text–quite a task, even for Philip.
“the extrapolation looks untenable (the current population growth is not typical of earlier time periods).
The extrapolation from current population growth for a young earth (whether typical of earlier time periods or not) is far more tenable than that of uniformitarian evolution based on millions/billions of years,and which assumes wrongly that the present is the key to the past ( no cataslymic destruction of the world’s population by a global flood, no scattering of the then world’s population at Babel and no Exodus ).
Philip says, “Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”
Yes, Philip and it also is a disgraceful and dangerous things for a Christian to hear an infidel, be he a scientist or theologian, using scientific opinion as a hermeneutical basis for giving the meaning of Holy scripture, making havoc and absurdity out of the plain meaning of scripture, and we (Christians) should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in spiritual understanding of the scriptures and laugh it to scorn.” Remember, spiritual understanding of what the scriptures teach (though not opposed to true science) comes through the Spirit of truth (revealed by God), not through scientific consensus or opinion.
Philip says, “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason.”
Again, the contention is that scientists and theologians, presumably Old earth scientists,uniformitarian evolutionists and those Christians and theologians who agree with them (theistic evolutionists) are wiser than those who accept Genesis 1-11 as factual history, whether or not they believe the scriptures to be true (false teachers abound in our churches and pulpits today) and despite the fact that theistic evolution, as I have indicated, clearly
“denies the creation-Fall-redemption paradigm, which is everywhere affirmed in both Old and New Testaments and is the revelational and historical foundation which makes the saving Gospel of Christ “Good News” and meaningful. The “Good News” becomes “Bad News” if Adam and the Fall are not historic figures and events.The apostle Paul built his theology on the historicity of Adam and the Fall (1 Corinthians 15: 22-58; Romans 5; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) and Jesus predicated marriage on the historical truth of the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve–the first humans, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), and not an evolutionary development from some race of hairy anthropids (ape-like men/women). When Jesus referred to marriage, instituted by God, and the creation of Adam and Eve, he accepted both as historical fact (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6).
Finally, Philip’s castigation of “It’s A Young World After All” by Paul D. Ackerman and young earth creation scientists and theologians in general who accept the Genesis narrative of creation as factual history is all to typical of those who turn to ad hominem attacks when they can’t refute the evidence–which is strikingly absent, both from scripture and from science, in support of Philip’s philosophical assertions (mostly straw-dummy arguments). Undoubtedly, he would include in the class of those who are ignorant, unlearned, reckless ad incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture, such distinguished and respected young earth scientists as Dr. John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. in
geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and the chief developer of the Terra code, a 3-D finite element program for modelling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere, also currently a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) committee and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research, Or
Dr Jonathan Sarfati , whose Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’ and has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. What about Dr. Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University who studied under Professor Steven J. Gould, considered the world’s leading evolutionist, and would strongly disagree with uniformitarian evolutionary geologists concerning gradual processes over millons of years of uniformitarian geology to explain the age of the earth. So much for ignorance, unlearned men, and reckless ad incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture, right Philip?
Philip previously mentioned about the danger of “ignorant, unlearned men, reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture, not bound by sacred authority, but fails to mention the fact that many professed Christians have lost their faith or experienced troubling doubts because of the popularity and virility of the “evolutionary gospel” . Those who attempt to marry the days of creation in Genesis 1, with evolutionary teaching of eons of millions/billions of years (I.e. Astronomer Hugh Ross ) have one bring problem, as I have already shown–the two just don’t fit. There are many major differences between the Word of God and evolutionary teachings.
Evolutionary biology claims that sea-going mammals (whales, sea elephants, dolphins) evolved after land animals, indeed evolved from land creatures, going from the land back into the sea. The Bible says every living creature, including the monstrous ones, were created on day 5 of Creation Week, before the land creatures. Many evolutionists claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs–quite late in the evolutionary tree. The Bible teaches that birds were created on Day 5 at the same time as the sea creatures–before dinosaurs and any other land dwellers. Evolution-based teaching says the moon was smashed from the earth in a cataclysmic collision, whereas the Bible says the moon was made on the 3rd day into Earth’s creation. It does not seem sensible (or scientific) for God to finish His work shaping the earth (on day 3) and then superheat and demolish it to make the moon. Evolutionary anthropology says that man has risen from the apes, and before that a rodent-like ancestor. The Bible teaches that God made man in His own image as a special creation, from dust. Philip needs to show more discernment about what is bound by sacred authority (the Word of God) because evolutionary teaching here enters the area of sacrilege–what then is God’s image? When God walked among us in the Person of Christ, His image was a man. I could give many more examples, but I believe the aforementioned are a difficult enough juggling act, even for the likes of astronomer Hugh Ross, when it comes to harmonizing the plain language and meaning of scripture with evolutionary teaching. I (and many others much more intelligent than I), after honestly and carefully examining the evidence (God gave us the gift of faith, not stupidity) will go with the Bible any time over the “molecules to man, from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolutionary fairytale, or theistic evolution–which is just evolution with God added on.
All the founding “fathers” of evolution, with the exception perhaps of Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of Botany who became Darwin’s promoter, ambassador, and apostle in the United States, rejected theistic evolution, as history clearly shows. When Gray tried to persuade Darwin to adopt his position of theistic evolution, Darwin quickly saw through the fallacy of Gray’s argument and rejected it outright. In a letter written to Charles Lyell in 1861, he said, “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of the new species out of the range of science.” Not only was Asa Gray’s theistic evolution rejected by Darwin, but also was never seriously considered by any of the other founding fathers of evolution. I mention this because it sheds light on how Darwin and the founding “fathers” of evolution most likely felt about the popular idea expounded by many today relative to Genesis 1 that God created the universe and all living things by means of evolution over millions rather than the biblical teaching of a recent and functionally mature universe, including man (which explains the appearance of old age), in six ordinary 24-hour days ex nihilo (out of nothing ). As I already pointed out, if death and struggle (the tooth and claw of evolution) were here eons before Adam’s sin, as evolution requires, this means that God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31) had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin, as scripture plainly teaches (Romans 5:12. This means that Christ’s death (for sin) and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the plain biblical teaching (I.e. Romans 8; Rev. 21) of the final restoration of this fallen world to its original state before the Fall–no sin, no curse, no death–is sheer nonsense. So you see, Philip, such words rightly mean everything to Christians bound by sacred authority (the Word of God) and therefore they quote them unashamedly, especially to those ” reckless and incompetent expounders of scripture” who presuppose the authority of fallible men over the authority of infallible scripture.
Philip says relative to the young earth position, “ This ignorant arrogance is not a new phenomenon as St. Augustine of Hippo noted (circa. 415)-and then quotes St. Augustine of Hippo. (and may I add out of context). St. Augustine was not an expert in biblical languages by any stretch of the imagination. The Western (Roman Catholic) church at his time was using Latin. When Augustine started working on his Genesis commentary in 401, his knowledge of Greek was almost non-existent. Although he attained a modest ability to read Greek by the time he was an old man, he knew no Hebrew. His Latin Bible was a translation of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT), not the Hebrew Bible (see J.H. Taylor’s introduction to St. Augustine, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”: New York Newman Press, 1982, 1:5).
It can be clearly shown with documentation that St. Augustine cannot remotely be used in support of old earth beliefs. The reason is that he tried to compress the days of Genesis 1 into an instant, which is diametrically opposed to what long-agers claim! Because of St. Augustine’s lack of Hebrew knowledge, he may have not been aware that there was a perfectly good word available for “moment” or “instant” rega’), if that’s what God had intended to communicate, and it could have been combined with “time” or “day”. It is used of God’s activity four times in the Old Testament: Exodus 33:5, Numbers 16:21, 16:45 and Ezra 9:8). Not only was St. Augustine’s error the opposite of Ross’s day-age time of millions/billions of years, he explicitly taught what now would be called a “young” earth. In his most famous work, City of God, he has a whole chapter, “Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, “ where he says:
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race…They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (Augustine, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), p. 12 (10).
Since St. Augustine believed creation was in an instant, then in his thinking, the time from Adam to the present was also the time from the beginning of creation to the present, which was less than 6,000 years. Furthermore, contrary to Ross’s assertions , St. Augustine wrote against a backdrop of evolutionary thinking in his time (The early 20th century evolutionist director of the American Museum of Natural History, Henry Fairfield Osborn, showed in his book “From the Greeks to Darwin : New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929) that all the essential ideas of Darwin’s theory can be found in the writings of the ancient Greeks long before St. Augustine, and even before Christ. St. Augustine summarizes various proto-catastrophist and proto-uniformitarian theories this way:
“There are others who think that our present world is not everlasting. Of these, some hold that, besides this one, there are a number of other worlds. The remainder, who admit only one world, claim that over and over again, it periodically disintegrates and begins again. In either theory, they are forced to conclude that the human race arose without human procreation, since there is no room here for the hypothesis that a few men would always remain each time the world perished, as was the case in the previous theory where floods and fires did not affect the whole world but left a few survivors to repeople it. For they hold that, just as the world is reborn out of its previous matter, so a new human race would arise from the elements of nature and only thereafter would a progeny of mortals spring from parents. And the same would be true of the rest of the animals.
There are some people who complain when we claim that man was created so late (I.e recently) They say that he must have been created countless and infinite ages ago, and not, as is recorded in scripture, less than 6,000 years.
It was this controversy (over the beginning of the things of time) that led the natural philosophers to believe that the only way they could or should solve it was by a theory of periodic cycles of time according to to which there always has been and will be a continual renewal and repetition in the order of nature, because the coming and passing ages revolve as on a wheel. These philosophers were not sure whether or not a single permanent world passes through these revolutions or whether, at fixed intervals, the world itself dissolves and evoles anew, repeating the same pattern of what has already taken place and will again take place…” (Augustine, The City of God, Books V111-XV1, translated by G. G. Walsh, and G. Monahan (Washington, DC: Catholic University of American Press, 1952), p. 265, 267.
You will find all of the above, and much more documentation in Sarfati‘s, best-selling, “must read” “Refuting Compromise,“ showing that the vast majority of exegetes, from the early church fathers through the Reformers and up to the early 19th century, believed that the creation days were 24-hours long. Even those who did not accept literal days erred in the opposite direction from Hugh Ross, by allegorizing the six days into an instant . Furthermore, those who commented on the age of the earth, whether taking the six days allegorically or literally, affirmed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old at the time they wrote–most said it was 6,000 years.
Rayburne
I get the impression that you are not actually responding to what I actually wrote but rather to a characterisation of a presumed typical critic of young earth creationism (your so-called “Straw dummy”), apparantly seeing a topic mentioned then rushing to young earth creationist literature and repeating what they have to say regardless of what point was actually being made. Take for instance the quotation of Augustine (which you apparently did not notice was a quotation in your earlier posts). You set out to refute the idea that he was an old earth creationist. Where did I sugest that he was an old earth creationist? My point was that was equally appalled by ignorant and arrogant people talking nonsense about science and claiming the Bible as justification.
With regard to your list of scientists you give as supporters of young earth creationism, be careful not to fall into the common trap of thinking that because someone has expertise of one area of science that they must be experts on all areas of science. It is not uncommon to see protagonists on both sides of the creation/debate making authorative pronouncements in areas way outside there area of expertise. One obvious example of this is the ‘RATE’ study aimed at disproving radiometric dating. None of the participants had significant expertise in radiometric dating. There are Christians around with sinificant experience in radiometric dating, including some non-evolutionists, however they would be unelligible to participate as they actually regarded the techiques as being valid and it was no secret that purpose of the study was not to impartially assess the validity of the techniques but rather to come up with reasons for rejecting it. The results were a foregone conclusion (certainly not requiring the over a million dollars of funds they used) and were not peer reviewed by scientists and that field. Many of there conclusions had been proposed and refuted long before they came out with them. In spite of of this the impression was given to the public that it was a scientifically credible study by experts in the field.
You stated “Philip previously mentioned about the danger of “ignorant, unlearned men, reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture, not bound by sacred authority, but fails to mention the fact that many professed Christians have lost their faith or experienced troubling doubts because of the popularity and virility of the “evolutionary gospel” Believing that the Bible teaches or allows for a old earth is certainly not the same as promoting an “evolutionary gospel”.
I cannot think of any cases of Christians loosing there faith from thinking that Genesis creation account allows for an old earth interpretation. I am however aware of cases of non Christians being deterred from investigating the Gospel due to being taught that it is a fundamental belief of Christianity that earth is only a few thousand years old, which they regard as nonsense (would you take seriously a preacher if they insisted that the earth was flat or something similar improbable?). What are the theological consequences of a old earth interpretation? Perhaps not being a vegetarian (as aninmal death is not regarded as inherently sinfull) or neglecting to evangelise animals as they aren’t included in 1 Cor 15:21,22 (or Romans 5:12 which clearly specifies death coming to Mankind ‘anthropos’ rather than animals).
You might think that a young earth interpretation is necessary for maintaining the inerrancy of scripture, however you miss the point that old earth creationists are usually arguing for the inerrancy of scripture, just their interpretation is a bit different. Historically young earth creationism hasn’t been a distinguishing feature of belief in the inerrancy of scripture. From the early 19th century to the mid 20th century the overwhelming proportion of Christian theologians (conservative as well as liberal) believed in old earth interpretations (with the gap theory being particular popular amongst conservative groups like the Plymouth Bretheren) Nearly all prominant critics of evolutionism were old-earth creationists. There was however one significant exception, with the Seventh Day Adventists . The leading Young Earth proponent of the early-mid 20th century was George McCready Price (1870-1963) who based his beliefs and ‘Flood Geology’ on the teaching and prophecies of of his mentor, Ellen G. White (1827-1915), prophetess and founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. White’s prophecies included explicit young-earth claims which her adherents felt obliged to defend.. Providing a justification for sabbatarianism was also a significant motivator. Prices views were set out in his 1923 book The New Geology’ this became the basis of the 1961 book ‘The Genesis Flood’ by John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry Morris, which was largely instrumental in broadening the popularity of Young Earth Creationism beyond Seventh Day Adventists. It is somewhat ironic that the contemporary Young Earth belief system which is thought by adherents as a justification of Biblical inerracy was (and argueably still is) a justification for the prophecies of a (false) prophetess. If you persist in unjustiably referring to all old earth views as being “evolutionary teaching” (despite most proponents specifically rejecting evolutionism) can I refer to young earth creationism as ‘Seventh day adventist teaching’ (despite most proponents being unaware of the link)?
I reguard the young earth intepretation of the creation account in Genesis as being only pseudo-literal as there are features of the account itself which are quite inconsistent with the young earth view of six 24 hour periods. In particular days 3 and 6 show evidence of longer time periods. For day 3 it states (1:12) The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. Young earth creationist typically interpret this as God miraculously created fully grown plants and trees however this is not what the text says, which specifically states that the earth/land produced/grew/brought forth the plants (following God’s fiat that it would occur) and that fruit trees reached maturity (wich typically takes years). Some young earth creationists might respond that God miraculously sped up the growing process so that mature fuit trees could grow in a single ordinary day, however this is still far from a literal reading of the text.
which grew to maturity including trees (verse 9), Adam put in the Garden to tend to it (verse 15), all the land animal and birds brought to Adam for him to name (verses19,20), Adam put to sleep and Eve formed from one of his ribs. A plain reading would imply a time period longer than a few hours and young earth creationists are forced to interpret this as the garden created fully formed and Adam hurriedly naming animals and birds at a extreme rate.
If Eve is the female created 0n day 6, then the events of chapter 2 would need to be fitted into that day. This would include God creating Adam, God planting a Garden (verse
The events of days 3 and 6 at least would suggest that either the ‘days’ were longer or alternatively the outworking of God’s fiats on the six days should be regarded as parenthetical and not restricted to the days (whether or not they were 24 hours).
Regarding the oft repeated quotation by James Barr, regarding the belief amongst academics that “creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” he went on to say in the letter “it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as an appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.” It is rather misleading to use the quotation as evidence for the technical linguistic case for the 24 hour interpretation rather than a general attitude to Genesis amongst professors of Hebrew or Old Testament that he knew at “world-class universities” (which presumably means secular universities).
You stated “Phillip did not mention Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages” Would that be the same Edward J Young who stated “But then there arises the question as the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”(quoted in “Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation.”)? Young held to a day-age interpretation of the creation. You seem to falsely assume that the only alternative to treating the creation account as poetry is to adopt a young earth view, Young “an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages” begged to differ.
With regards to the claimed Hebrew rule that whenever ‘day’ appears with a number it mustrefer to a literal 24 hour day, this is a rule that young earth creationists have made up for themselve and is not a standard rule of ancient Hebrew. There are some exceptions to this ‘rule’ in the Bible, notably Hosea 6:1-2.
You stated “The extrapolation from current population growth for a young earth (whether typical of earlier time periods or not) is far more tenable than that of uniformitarian evolution based on millions/billions of years,and which assumes wrongly that the present is the key to the past ( no cataslymic destruction of the world’s population by a global flood, no scattering of the then world’s population at Babel and no Exodus ).”
The population argument for a young earth is a foolish attempt of extrapolating a current trend when proponents thought it would support there case (using extreme uniformitarianism if it suits them), not realising it that it contradicts not only secular historical indications of population but also numbers stated in scripture (with a calculated world population far smaller than just the Israelite men at the time of the Exodus). The frequency with which this argument is repeated by young earth proponents shows an extreme carelessness in establishing the validity of their evidence.I do believe in Noah’s flood, the Tower of Babel and the Exodus so population growth is actually an argument against the young earth interpretation (claiming that Noah’s flood was so soon before the other events).
Phillip says: “You seem to falsely assume that the only alternative to treating the creation account as poetry is to adopt a young earth view.” I do not assume any such thing.
Dr. E. J. Young also said, “No one has ever answered the argument (for six normal days) from the Fourth Commandment” (see
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/in_defense_of_six_day_creation.shtml).
Dr. Morton H. Smith, Professor at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Greenville, SC , wrote regarding Dr. E. J. Young “waffled” position on the length of the days of Genesis (see website: http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/scott-smith.htm):
“I remember being somewhat disappointed with Dr. E. J. Young’s position on this matter. I think that Dr. David Calhoun’s history of Princeton Seminary helps to explain where Young was coming from. The Princeton men ‘waffled’ on this matter, with the result that Westminster Seminary, which Machen says was the continuation of Princeton has also continued in that ‘waffled’ position.”
That Dr. Young did “waffle” on this position is evident from an article in the Westminster Theological Journal 25 (1962-3) 1-34. Copyright © 1963 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission, THE DAYS OF GENESIS by EDWARD J. YOUNG,, in which Dr. Young cites the late Professor G. C. Aalders of the Free University of Amsterdam as adducing two considerations which must guide every serious interpreter of the first chapter of Genesis.
(1) In the text of Genesis itself, he affirmed, there is not a single allusion to suggest that the days are to be regarded as a form or mere manner of representation and hence of no significance for the essential knowledge of the divine creative activity.
(2) In Exodus 20:11 the activity of God is presented to man as a pattern, and this fact presupposes that there was a reality in the activity of God which man is to follow. How could man be held accountable for working six days if God himself had not actually worked for six days?”
And then Dr. Young states: “To the best of the present writer’s knowledge no one has ever answered these two con-siderations of Aalders.” You can read the entire article at
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Young_Days1a-WTJ.htm
Obviously, Dr. E.J. Young’s “waffled” position on the length of the days of Genesis, as Dr. Morton H. Smith (see quote above)makes clear, was not because he derived this conviction from His expertise in Hebrew based on the meaning of the creation days in Genesis 1 and does not detract in any way from the position of Dr. Barr, who does base his conviction of Genesis 1 (indeed Genesis1-11) on his expertise as a world renown Hebrew scholar and exegete, even though he does so as an hostile witness.
Philip’s false canard “that whenever ‘day’ appears with a number it must refer to a literal 24 hour day is a rule that young earth creationists have made up is really another straw-man argument (and very misleading) because the key issue is the meaning of “day” (“yom”)in Genesis 1 (a text without a context is a pretext) when it appears not only with a number but also each day is qualified also with the expression “evening and morning” which always refers to a 24-hour ordinary day outside Genesis;hence, “And the evening and morning were the first day.” “And the evening and morning were the second day,” etc.
I could discuss the other canards and straw-men that Philip sets up, but I don’t think it is necessary. Give us solid evidence (i.e. Hebrew) to support your assertions.
If I were to quote one scholar to back up this statement, the reader may not be impressed. But what if that scholar was a leading Oxford University professor of Hebrew who claimed that, as far as he knew, all other similar world class Hebrew language scholars were of the same mind?
The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,
“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”
Readers can check out this statement. It is not taken out of context, as Philip claims.
In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said,”If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”
What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1?
A word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance, the English word “day” can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example, consider the following sentence: “Back in my grandfather’s day, it took 12 days to drive across the country during the day.”
Here the first occurrence of “day” means “time” in a general sense.
The second “day,” where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period.
The point is that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.
To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:
A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”
A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?
In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.
The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.” Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1. Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said,
If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.
Philip says (referring the above comment by Dr. Barr: “It is rather misleading to use the quotation as evidence for the technical linguistic case for the 24 hour interpretation rather than a general attitude to Genesis amongst professors of Hebrew or Old Testament that he knew at “world-class universities” (which presumably means secular universities).
Whatever that supposed to mean (sounds like some philosophical babble to me) Dr. Barr stated openly and honestly what the language of Genesis meant, based on his competence and expertise in Hebrew, particularly the days of creation in Genesis 1. What he meant by professors of Hebrew at world-class universities was leading universities like Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, Cal. ,etc. He said what he meant and meant what he said, though there are die-hards today who will try to convince you otherwise.
Rayburne
The way in which many young earth creationists regard their interpretation of the Genesis creation account as being obvious tends to indicate that they have not closely examined the text and its implications. Aside from the problem of fitting the events mentioned (such as trees growing and all that Adam did on day 6) into 6 24 hour days there is the bigger question of God’s relationship to the physical universe in time and space. In the creation account we have a series of declarations by God along with statements of the outworking of these declarations. Those that claim that the account obviously only covers a 144 hour period make the hidden assumption that God must only declare and act in time and space as a human or any other creature does.
The insistence that the days Genesis 1 must be 24 hours even with regard to Gods activity fails to take into account anthromophisms. With similar justification some Mormons have argued that Old Testament references to God having body parts (arm, hands eg Exodus 6:6, 7:5) must be taken as meaning God must have a physical body (mormon teachings include that God (the Father) was once a man, and that Jesus was conceived by physical intercouse), and no doubt they can make arguments that the primary meanings of the Hebrew words is of physical body parts.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that because a word or grouping of words usually has a particular meaning than there cannot be any exceptions to that even if the context implies it. What is usual does not prohibit exceptions. Gods declaration of and creation of the universe doesn’t exactly qualify as usual. In the case of ‘Yom’ with a number there are other examples of it not meaning a 24 hour day (e.g. Hosea 6:1-2). Even of the case of ‘evening morning’ there are other examples where it is unclear whether ‘ordinary’ evenings and mornings are meant (e.g. in the prophecies of Daniel).
You stated: “Whatever that supposed to mean (sounds like some philosophical babble to me) Dr. Barr stated openly and honestly what the language of Genesis meant, based on his competence and expertise in Hebrew, particularly the days of creation in Genesis 1. What he meant by professors of Hebrew at world-class universities was leading universities like Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, Cal. ,etc. He said what he meant and meant what he said, though there are die-hards today who will try to convince you otherwise.”
Outside specifically evangelical universities the belief in the infalliability of scripture is regarded as seriously unfashionable in biblical studies departments in “world class universities” and in particular the common assumption is that the creation accounts are to be considered myths without scientific basis. From this perspective the young earth interpretation, contradictory of scientific evidence is actually to be preferred, hence Barr’s elaboration that “it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as an appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.”
Have you ever noticed that evolutionists are actually keen to claim that creationists believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old? I recently saw a television program on evolution in it creationism was introduced as ‘the belief that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago’ and hardly bothering to mention any reason’s for rejecting naturalistic evolution. This emphasis is hardly as a result of a careful analysis of the possible meaning of the word ‘Yom’ but rather a desire to discredit creationism as a whole.
So that you don’t miss my point, I (and most evangelical Christians) are well aware of the spiritual condition of most Bible departments today in “world class” universities, especially regarding the doctrine of the infalliability of scripture and their teaching that the creation accounts are to be considered myths without scientific basis, all of which has nothing to do with Dr. Barr’s honest opinion on what the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11, in its biblical context, intended to teach, especially concerning the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, based on his competence and expertise in Hebrew. Dr. Barr, as I have indicated already is not a believer; indeed, is a prominent critic of inerrancy and infalliability–which, as I’ve already said, as a hostile witness, makes his expert opinion even more credible. And I can assure you that Dr. Barr knows all about anthromophisms and exeptions to the use of the particular meanings of words in their biblical context. And may I add, so do I–which is why I stated explicitly that the Hebrew word “day” (yom) can have many different meanings, depending on its context–and gave numerous examples to support my assertion–I did not assume anything.
That you quote Hosea 6:1-2 as an example of “Yom” used with a number not meaning a 24-hour day and mention examples (none actually given) in Daniel’s prophesies where it is not clear that “ordinary” evenings and mornings are meant or implied, misses the point badly and merely begs the question of what does each “day” (yom) mean in Hebrew in the context of Genesis 1 where “day” (Hebrew yom) is not only used with a number but also further qualified by “evening and morning” (i.e. “So the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day,” etc.), so that guys like you would not miss it. Context, Phillip. Always context.
That there are examples of alternative usage and meaning, such as you cite (there may even be more) is acknowledged by all believers-what matters is what does the word “day” (Hebrew yom) mean in the context of Genesis 1 where it is used not only with a number but also qualified by the expression “evening and the morning, as well as in association with the word “night” in Genesis 1:5, which further determines the meaning as ordinary day.You mentioned one example of alternative usage and meaning and a possible second but, as I already said, outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception” Again, outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day? Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Further, in Genesis 1:5 yom occurs in context with the word “night” . Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each timeit means an ordinary day.Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?
If this isn’t enough to convince any honest Hebrew student, all three examples: yom with a number; yom with “evening and the morning,” and yom with “night” (Genesis 1:5; 1:8;1:13; 1:18-19; 1:23; 1:31) are used together in the context of Genesis 1. Why did I ask the question three times: “Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?” Because we are not dealing with one element here (i.e. number, or evening and morning), but all three (i.e. number, “evening and the morning” and “night”)used with yom in the context of Genesis 1, so that no one can possibly miss it (except those who don’t want to believe it because their faith in scientific opinion eceeds that in the scriptures).
That is why I specificially mentioned Dr. Barr, because although he does not concede that the Bible is true; indeed, is highly critical of the doctrine of infalliability; nevertheless, acknowledges that the writer(s) of Genesis 1 intended clearly to teach that the word “day” (yom) in the context of each of the days of the creation account means an ordinary 24-hour day based on his competence and epertise. His answer to the question:”Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?” based on his own thorough and meticulous study of both text and context (a text without a context is a pretext)in Genesis 1 obviously is “No, Genesis 1 would not be the exception”–that there could be no mistaking the obvious plain meaning of the Hebrew language of Genesis 1, where all three elements (i.e. number, “evening and the morning” and “night”) are used with yom here in the context of the creation account of Genesis 1. (Read Dr. Barr’s quote again regarding what the writer (s) of Genesis 1 meant to teach according to the Hebrew usage and meaning of yom in this context–and then check out the quote to verify that I have quoted it correctly and have not taken it out of context). Even nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said, quote, “If, for eample, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretion of scripture is hopeless.”
I know all of this will still not be enough to convince many like Phillip, but the problem is not the linguistic evidence in this case, but rather exalting scientific opinion above the sure testimony of scripture. One is free to believe what he will (Try to convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still) but don’t try to make the Bible teach and say what it doesn’t simply because you will not accept the obvious plain meaning of scripture according to the Hebrew language in this context and Hebrew scholarship because of infalliable scientific opinion. I have more respect for someone who says he knows what the Bible teaches, but does not believe it, than that. I could say much more, but I think I have worn out this topic and my comments.
Correction: that should obviously be “falliable scientific opinion”.
Here is Barnes on the days in HoseaAfter two days will He revive us or quicken us, give us life, in the third day He will raise us up. The Resurrection of Christ, and our resurrection in Him and in His Resurrection, could not be more plainly foretold. The prophet expressly mentions “two days,” after which life should be given, and a “third day, on” which the resurrection should take place. What else can this be than the two days in which the Body of Christ lay in the tomb, and the third day, on which He rose again, as “the Resurrection and the life”,{#Joh 11:25} “the first fruits of them that slept”,{#1Co 15:20} the source and earnest and pledge of our resurrection and of life eternal? The Apostle, in speaking of our resurrection in Christ, uses these self-same words of the prophet; “God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us — hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.{#Eph 2:4-6}
The Apostle, like the prophet, speaks of that which took place in Christ our Head, as having already taken place in us, His members. (Leo): “If we unhesitatingly believe in our heart,” says a father, “what we profess with our mouth, we were crucified in Christ, “we” died, “we” were buried, “we” also were raised again on that very third day. Whence the Apostle saith, “If ye rose again with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God”.{#Col 3:1} “As Christ died for us, so He also rose for us. “Our old man was nailed to the wood, in the flesh of our Head, and the new man was formed in that same Head, rising glorious from the tomb.” What Christ, our Head, did, He did, not for Himself, but for His redeemed, that the benefits of His Life, Here is J F B2. Primarily, in type, Israel’s national revival, in a short period (“two or three” being used to denote a few days, #Isa 17:6 Lu 13:32,33); antitypically the language is so framed as to refer in its full accuracy only to Messiah, the ideal Israel (#Isa 49:3; compare #Mt 2:15, with #Ho 11:1), raised on the third day (#Joh 2:19 1Co 15:4; compare #Isa 53:10). “He shall prolong His days.” Compare the similar use of Israel’s political resurrection as the type of the general resurrection of which “Christ is the first-fruits” (#Isa 26:19 Eze 37:1-14 Da 12:2).
live in his sight — enjoy His countenance shining on us, as of old; in contrast to #Ho 5:6,15, “Withdrawn Himself from them.”
Here is Strong’s on the word that is used for day in Hosea 6.03117 ??? yowm yomefrom an unused root meaning to be hot; n m; {See TWOT on 852}AV-day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44; 2287
1) day, time, year1a) day (as opposed to night) {#Ge 7:4,12 8:22 31:39,40 Ex 24:18 34:28 Nu 11:32 Jos 10:13 De 9:9,11,18,25 10:10 Ge 1:5,14,16,18 1Sa 30:12 Jud 19:8,9,11 Am 5:8 1Ki 8:29 19:8 Ne 4:22 Ec 8:16 2Sa 3:35}1a1) the heat of the day {#Ge 18:1 1Sa 11:11 2Sa 4:5}1a2) the day is still high {#Ge 29:7}1a3) cool of the day {#Ge 3:8}1a4) from dawn until midday {#Ne 8:3}1a5) growing lighter and lighter until the full day {#Pr 4:18}1a6) until the declining of the day {#Jud 19:8}1a7) the day has sunk down and become evening {#Jud 19:9}1b) day (24 hour period)1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 11b2) as a division of time1b2a) a working day, a day’s journey1c) days, lifetime (pl.)1d) time, period (general)1e) year1f) temporal references1f1) today1f2) yesterday1f3) tomorrow
The point being is that we cannot use the way the word is used in Hosea to determine the usage in Genesis. Context is our only guide. And the context is clear in Genesis. Those who oppose this must reject the context and and clear reading, and take a poetic approach to the passage.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT