|
Five Common Objections to Literal Days
Based on the works of
geologists James Hutton (1726-1797) and Charles
Lyell (1797-1875) the concept of long time periods
for Earth’s history became popular.
-
Because of these new theories
some Biblical writers started to reinterpret the
Genesis days of creation in a non-literal
manner.
-
The reason for this
reinterpretation of the Bible was not found in the
Bible itself but because of a new worldview.
-
This worldview held that
there was no God, demanded long ages, and was based
on the idea that everything can be explained in
terms of natural causes.
1.
Psalm
90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8
PS 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like
yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the
night.
-
This Scripture passage
contains a comparative particle in the original
Hebrew to make the comparison between 1,000 years
and “yesterday” and “a watch in the
night.” The comparative particle is translated
into English as “like” or “as.”
-
The comparison is not
between a day being a literal 1,000 years.
-
The comparison is that a
thousand years with God are like
yesterday, or like a
watch in the night, which is even a briefer period
of time.
-
The meaning of the passage is
that God equates time differently from the way we
equate time.
Genesis 1 is not depicting how
God views time.
-
The Genesis context of
creation speaks of days in the sense of the
creation week during which God created this world
and set the measure of the week.
-
Genesis 1 does not explain
how time is calculated on God’s scale, but how the
creation days set the norm for days in the weekly
cycle of time - work six days and rest one.
-
From a contextual and
grammatical point of view comparing Psalm 90:4 to
Genesis 1 does not work. Psalm 90 is not a creation
psalm.
-
Contextually speaking, Psalm
90 does not address the issue of how God regards the
days of creation but how God views time.
2 Peter 3:8
2PE 3:8
But do not let this one fact escape your notice,
beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a
thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
2 Peter
3:8 (NASB)
-
This passage is also used to
support that the days of creation were long periods
of time. However, 2 Peter 3:8, when put in context,
says nothing about the days of creation.
-
This passage is referring to
the last days and false teachers and that we should
not overlook God’s time perspective. The entire
passage is referring to God’s timing, His nature,
something the scoffers of the day did not
understand.
-
Since a thousand years
are as one day to the Lord, we cannot accuse Him of
delayed fulfillment of His promises.
-
The scoffers did not
understand God’s eternality nor did they understand
His mercy.
-
Using this verse to support
long ages for the creation days is taking God’s Word
out of context.
-
It is clear that the intended
meaning of the passage has nothing to do with the
measurement of time, but with God’s nature.
There are five major problems with the attempt to
make 2 Peter 3:8 relate to the days of creation.
1.
It is not in a creation
context.
2.
It uses the comparative
particle "like," which is not used in Genesis
1.
3.
It is used in a non-literal
sense if the 1,000 years are taken to mean an age.
4.
Its context actually shows
that God is not limited by time in fulfilling His
promises.
5.
The second part of the verse
says that a thousand years are also like one day,
making the argument circular (see picture above).
2.
Genesis 1 is Written
as an Allegory, Not True History
Some who believe the word day means long ages
state that Genesis 1 is written as an allegory and
not true history.
-
This contradicts the
contextual support for the word day.
-
The Hebrew grammatical
sentence structure, the specific word used (day),
and the clear understanding of the text all indicate
the word day is to be taken as narrative history and
not an allegory.
The view that the first chapter of Genesis is
allegorical and not real history is often referred
to as the framework hypothesis.
-
John MacArthur states the
following about the framework hypothesis: “The
problem with the framework hypothesis is that it
employs a destructive method of interpretation. If
the plain meaning of Genesis 1 may be written off
and the language treated as nothing more than a
literary device, why not do the same with Genesis 3?
Where does the metaphor ultimately end and history
begin? After the Flood? After the
Tower of Babel? And why there? Why not regard all
the biblical miracles as literally devices
[allegories]?” (6, pg. 21)
Is Genesis chapter one an allegory?
-
It is theoretically
possible, but where is the evidence?
-
There are no indications in
Genesis chapter 1.
-
There are no indications in
other passages of Scripture.
-
The only references to the
length of the creation week and to the lengths of
the days are comparing them directly to a literal
week and a literal day.
EX
20:11
“ For in six days the
LORD
made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that
is in them…
Exodus
20:11 (NASB)
EX
31:17
“ …in six days the
LORD
made heaven and earth…
Exodus
31:17 (NASB)
The grammatical, contextual, and semantic structure
of Genesis 1 indicates that the days are to be taken
as literal days.
-
Those who oppose this do not
do so because of any Biblical text, but because of a
belief or confidence that scientists have proven the
earth to be billions of years old. Therefore, they
reinterpret the Biblical text to match this belief.
In fact, there are many scientific
 evidences
that support a young earth.
3.
Not all Days with a
Number Mean a Literal Day (Hosea 6:2)
HOS 6:2
“He will revive us after two days; He will raise
us up on the third day, That we may live before Him.
Hosea
6:2 (NASB)
Some claim that this is one
case where day used with a number is not a
literal day; therefore all days with a number do not
have to mean literal days.
-
This is a misleading
statement.
-
In this verse, the prophet
Hosea uses a Hebrew idiom. An idiom is a figure of
speech that is unique to a particular people or
region.
-
The prophecy recorded in
Hosea is a promise to restore Israel in a
short period of time at some time in the future.
-
It is difficult to understand
the significance of this prophecy if day is not
based on its normal meaning of 24 hours.
If two days and third
day in this passage do not invoke the meaning of
normal 24-hour days, this expression loses its
proper meaning.
-
This point is
illustrated in other passages, which use figurative
speech.
PS 18:2
The LORD
is my rock... PS 23:1
The LORD
is my shepherd… EX
17:15
The LORD is My Banner
Psalm
18:2 (NASB) Psalm 23:1 (NASB)
Exodus 17:15 (NASB)
-
The language is clearly
figurative; the Lord is not actually a banner,
shepherd, or rock.
-
The point is this:
-
The reason these figures of
speech communicate an effective word-picture is
because readers understand the literal meaning of
those things to which the Lord is compared.
4.
The ”Facts” of
Science Support the Earth is Old
Some have taken the stance that
a scientific theory has priority over Scripture.
-
One of the most frequently
argued objections to the trustworthiness of
Scripture is found in the apparent discrepancy
between the account of creation given in Genesis 1
and the supposed evidence from the fossils and
geologic strata that indicate the earth is billions
of years old.
-
Genesis 1 teaches that
Creation took place in six 24-hour days.
This conflict between Genesis 1 and science is only
apparent, not real.
-
Everything makes sense in
light of the Bible.
-
“The Bible is not directly
intended to be a book about natural science, yet it
never contradicts the real facts of nature (once
they are fully understood); and in many things has
been found to be a truly marvelous anticipation of
the most remarkable discoveries of modern science.
Even the statements and allusions which at one time
were criticized by science as incorrect and ignorant
have been found by latter discoveries to be in real
accord with the constitution of nature, although
opposed to what was once supposed to be scientific
truth.” – A.B. Simpson (11, pg. 18)
-
“Sometimes our
understanding of science (what we observe, our
interpretation of facts) is not correct. However,
the track record reveals that given enough time,
true scientific knowledge always supports the
Bible.” – Mike Riddle (1, pg. 8)
-
“The more fully the facts
of science are corrected and established, the more
wonderful is the harmony which they show with all
allusions of the Mosaic writings.” – A.B.
Simpson (11, pg. 2)
-
“The Bible is supreme
truth, and therefore it is the standard by which
scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice
versa.” – John MacArthur (6, pg. 22)
-
Typically those who put their
faith first in science reinterpret the Bible in the
following manner:
1.
Discredit the straightforward
reading of a six-day creation, “it’s only
symbolic.”
2.
Then promote science to a
higher level.
-
This is a common tactic.
First cause doubt in the Bible and then solve the
problem with something new, in this case “science.”
-
This is of course
assuming scientists are correct and we are willing
to change the meaning of the Bible.
-
The “facts” of science are
almost always shown to be wrong or have had to
change based on newer, or more exact research
anyway.
-
The current studies in the
fossil record and geologic evidence actually support
a more recent creation.
Why should we be cautious about committing ourselves
to the temporary ideas of scientific beliefs,
models, or theories?
-
The history of evolutionary
teaching demonstrates a history of unproven
theories.
-
What was once passed off as
fact is constantly changing.
-
For example, the following
were once taught as facts of evolution and sometimes
still are:
-
Vestigial organs
-
Recapitulation
-
Piltdown man and
Nebraska man
-
The Stanley Miller experiment
-
Long geological periods are
required to make large canyons
-
Many layers of strata take
thousands or millions of years to produce
-
Coal and oil require
long ages to produce
-
If this is the track
record of science, why would we want to reinterpret
God’s Word using constantly changing ”facts?”
-
Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin
Rees makes the following comment about science:“Scientific
explanations remain perpetually incomplete. If we
learn anything from the pursuit of science, it is
that even something as basic as an atom is quite
difficult to understand. This alone should induce
skepticism about any dogma or any claim to have
achieved more than a very incomplete and
metaphorical insight into any profound aspect or our
existence.” (13, pg 49)
-
We can stand on God’s
Word as never changing truth.
LK
21:33
“ Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words
will not pass away.
Luke
21:33 (NASB)
JN
17:17
Your word is truth.
John
17:17 (NASB)
Atheist Now Believes in First Cause
-
Oxford professor, Antony Flew, was one of the
world’s leading atheists.
-
“Mr. Flew has been called
the most influential atheist philosopher in the
world, and his arguments against the existence of
God are staples of many college anthologies and
textbooks.” (15, pg. 22)
-
He now believes in a Creator.
-
“At age 81, after decades
of insisting belief is a mistake,
Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of
intelligence or first cause must have created the
universe. A super-intelligence is the only good
explanation for the origin of life and the
complexity of nature.” (14)
-
“I am very much impressed
with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on
Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be
scientifically accurate raises the possibility that
it is revelation.” (16)
-
“I think that the most
impressive arguments for God’s existence are those
that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.
I think the argument to Intelligent Design is
enormously stronger than it was when I first met
it.” (16)
-
“It now seems to me that
the findings of more than fifty years of
DNA research have provided materials for a new
and enormously powerful argument to design.”
(16)
-
“Yet biologists’
investigations of DNA has shown, by
the almost unbelievable complexity of the
arrangements which are needed to produce life, that
intelligence must have been involved.” (14)
-
“Well, the First Cause, if
there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced
everything that is going on. I suppose that does
imply creation “in the beginning.” (16)
-
Why would Professor Flew
renounce his life’s work and the reason for his
fame?
-
“My whole life has been
guided by the principle of Plato [and] Socrates.
Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” (15,
pg. 22)
5.
Appeal to Authority
Many use an appeal to authority to support the view
that the days of creation were not literal 24-hour
days. There are several reasons why we should be
cautious when someone uses an appeal to authority as
the basis of their argument.
Hebrew Scholars who are
willing to accept current scientific theories over
God’s word.
-
When referencing Hebrew
scholars who do not believe in 24-hour days, we
should examine why they do not believe the plain
reading of the Bible.
-
In many cases it is not
because they believe the word day means long
ages, but rather because of their willingness to
accept current scientific theories over God’s Word.
-
Gleason Archer (Ph.D.
Harvard University, Professor of Old Testament and
Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Seminary)
writes: “From a superficial reading of Genesis 1,
the impression received is that the entire creative
process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If
this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a
questionable deduction, as will be presently shown),
this seems to run counter to modern scientific
research, which indicates that the planet
Earth was created several billion years ago. In the
nineteenth century the chief evidence for this
extreme antiquity (which was then, however,
computed to be far less than is the case today) was
found in the rate at which sediment is deposited by
water action in modern times.” (7, pg. 181–182)
Popular theories tend to be
discarded for new discoveries.
-
If we use popular scientific
theories to interpret the Bible, a dangerous
precedence is set.
-
History demonstrates that
popular theories tend to be discarded for new
discoveries.
-
How often are we willing to
change the meaning of God’s Word based on new
scientific discoveries?
-
Today, there is much
scientific evidence to support a young earth.
-
Keith Wanser (Ph.D. Condensed
Matter Physics) states the following about
scientific evidence: “I am
convinced there is far more evidence for a recent,
six-day creation and a global Flood than there is
for an old earth and evolution.” (8, pg. 58)
-
It is false and misleading to
state that scientists have proven the earth is
billions of years old.
-
It is also false and
misleading to state that the only reason some
scientists believe in a young earth is because of
their religious beliefs.
-
The majority of scientific
evidence today actually supports a young earth.
The scientists who believe in a young earth do so
for two reasons:
1.
The clear reading of the
Bible indicates a literal 6-day creation.
2.
There is much scientific
evidence that supports a young earth.
In conclusion, how reliable is this appeal to
authority (Hebrew scholars and scientists) by
theistic evolutionists to support long ages?…Not
reliable, because the information is either:
1.
Misleading in the case of
Hebrew scholars, since they believe in long ages
because of their understanding of science rather
than their interpretation of the Hebrew.
2.
Misleading in the case of
scientific evidence, since there is much evidence
that supports a young earth.
Eleven Contextual
Elements That Support a Literal Day
The Hebrew word for day is
yom (Goodrick/Kohlenberger, 3117,
µ/y:)
which means day (24 hours), daytime (in contrast
to night); by extension: an indefinite period of
time, an era with a certain characteristic, such as
“the day of the Lord” and the prophetic “on that
day.” (5)
-
This word can have several
meanings. It can mean the daylight portion of a day,
a 24-hour day, or some distant point in time.
-
If a word can have so many
different meanings, how do we know what it means
when we read it?
-
We must look at the
surrounding context to determine the true meaning.
1.
A Number Used with
Each Day
When we read through Genesis 1
we note that there is a number used each time with
the word day.
“And
there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
“And
there was evening and there was morning, a second
day.”
“There
was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
“There
was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”
“There
was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.”
“And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth
day.”
Genesis
1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 (NASB)
-
Each time day is used
with a number, it is always taken to mean a short
period of time, a literal day.
-
A number is used with the
word day over 350 times in the Old Testament.
-
In the hundreds of other
cases in the Old Testament where yom stands
in conjunction with a number (first, second, third,
etc.), it never means anything other than a normal,
literal day.
EX
12:15
‘ Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but
on the first day you shall remove leaven from your
houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the
first day until the seventh day, that person shall
be cut off from Israel.
Exodus
12:15 (NASB)
EX
24:16
The glory of the
LORD
rested on
Mount
Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days; and on
the seventh day He called to Moses from the midst of
the cloud.
Exodus
24:16 (NASB)
2.
Evening and Morning
- Each Day is Defined
In Genesis 1, God defines the
length of a day. He puts the parameters,
“evening” and “morning” around the word day just to make sure we would understand
that the creation days were literal days and not
long periods of time.
“And
there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
“And
there was evening and there was morning, a second
day.”
“There
was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
“There
was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”
“There
was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.”
“And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth
day.”
Genesis
1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 (NASB)
-
Each of these verses clearly
sets a definite beginning and end to each of the
creation days.
-
The qualifying words,
“evening” and “morning,” attached here to
each of these recurring statements occur together
outside of Genesis in 37 verses. In each instance
these words are employed to describe an ordinary
day.
EX
18:13
It came about the next day that Moses sat to
judge the people, and the people stood about Moses
from the morning until the evening.
Exodus
18:13 (NASB)
3.
Genesis 1:14
In the middle of the creation
account (Genesis 1:14), God makes a distinction
between a day, a season, and a year, indicating that
they are different lengths of time.
GE 1:14
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the
expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the
night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and
for days and years;
Genesis
1:14 (NASB)
-
If we want to make the days
of creation long indefinite periods of time, then
what is a season, or what is a year? The whole verse
(Genesis 1:14) fails to have any meaning if a
day is not a literal day.
-
Does a season become an extra
long indefinite period of time? And how long of an
indefinite period of time is a year?
-
When we add man’s changing
ideas into the Bible, the Bible becomes difficult to
understand.
-
Why change the clear meaning
of the Bible to accommodate evolution, which is an
ever-changing model depending on the current
understanding, or teaching, of the scientific
evidence?
4.
Exodus
20:11 and
31:17-18
In Exodus 20:11 God makes this
statement:
EX
20:11
“ For in six days the
LORD
made the heavens and the earth…
Exodus
20:11 (NASB)
-
In this passage, God is
giving the Ten Commandments directly to Moses. This
implies that God is communicating ideas that are to
be understood in human terms.
-
God said His creation took
six days, not six million years or six billion
years.
-
This exactly coincides with
Genesis 1. Scripture supporting Scripture.
-
This should settle once and
for all any doubt we might have about the length of
the days of creation.
-
This statement by God is also
given in Exodus 31:17 -18. Note that in the
following verses it is not Moses writing, but God
with His own finger.
EX
31:17
“ It is a sign between Me and the sons of
Israel
forever; for in six days the
LORD
made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He
ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
EX
31:18
When He had finished speaking with him upon
Mount
Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the
testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger
of God.
Exodus
31:17-18 (NASB)
5.
Choice of Words
The choice of words used to
communicate the duration of God’s creation is
significant. In the Hebrew language, just as in the
English language, there are many words that can be
used to indicate some form of time.
-
In the Hebrew language there
are several words that can be used to indicate a
long period of time.
-
If God had wanted us to
understand that His creation took a long period of
time (millions or billions of years), He could have
used any of these other words.
-
But God chose none of them,
He specifically chose the word "day", He was
consistent with how He used it (with a number), He
defined the length of the day (evening and morning),
and He wrote it down for us on clay tablets (Exodus
20:11). What more evidence do we need that God took
six literal days to create?
Now consider this: What is the
purpose of a language?
-
The answer is to communicate.
Whom is God trying to communicate with in His
Word?…Us.
-
God communicates to us
through His Word - the Bible.
-
Would it make any sense if
God deliberately chose the word day,
supported by contextual meaning to be a literal day
and intend it to mean something else (long ages)?
-
If this is how God intends to
communicate to us (the word day really
meaning long ages), how can we be sure of anything
else in His Word?
6.
Sentence Structure
Linguists divide the world’s
languages into groups according to the structure
they use for their normal statements, as opposed to
questions or literary devices.
-
All languages have
sentences. So far no language has been discovered
which does not have them.
-
Sentences have parts we call
subjects (S), verbs (V), and objects (O). Not all
sentences have all three, but they occur in all
languages.
-
Languages differ in the order
in which these parts appear in basic sentences.
-
English is called an SVO
language, Hebrew is VSO, and Japanese is SOV. If we
take a sentence like OUR CAT CAUGHT A MOUSE,
the sentence would appear in the three languages
roughly as follows:
-
English: Our cat (S) caught
(V) a mouse (O).
-
Hebrew: Caught (V) our cat
(S) a mouse (O).
-
Japanese: Our cat (S) a mouse
(O) caught (V).
-
In stylish writing and in
poetry, word order is often changed. The Psalms are
written with an SVO structure.
-
In general, if the Hebrew
sentence structure is VSO it is written as
narrative, but if it is SVO, it is poetic. How does
Genesis 1:1 translate from the Hebrew?
GE 1:1
In the beginning created (V) God (S)
the heavens (O) and the earth.
Genesis
1:1
-
This is standard VSO, making
it narrative/historic, not poetic as in the book of
Psalms.
Another general feature of
languages is that the first time a word is used we
must know its true meaning.
-
A very important point that
most people overlook when it comes to word use, is
that it is impossible to use a word as a symbol, or
figuratively, unless it already has a literal
meaning.
-
The word day cannot,
in Hebrew or English, be used in the abstract or
symbolic sense unless it already has a clearly
understood literal meaning.
7.
Genealogies
The Biblical genealogies in Genesis 5 support a
recent creation.
-
Often times the argument is
made that we can’t trust the Bible because there are
gaps in the list of names. A simple review of the
genealogies in the Bible shows that this is not
true.
-
The genealogies in Genesis
chapter 5, 1 Chronicles chapter 1, and Luke chapter
3, list the exact first ten names starting with
Adam. In all three places the names are identical.
So where do some people get the idea that names have
been omitted?…Not from the Bible.
-
The interesting thing is that
it wouldn’t matter if names were omitted because the
life spans overlap.
We are told over and over that the genealogies
contain gaps.
-
However, in order to fill
these gaps to match the alleged millions of years,
it would require hundreds, or thousands of missing
generations.
-
Even allowing for the
numerous gaps in the chronological tables given in
Genesis 5 and Genesis 10 it is unreasonable to
suppose that a hundred times as many generations are
omitted in these tables as are included in them. Why
would the Bible give only a few names in the
genealogies and leave out so many? What would be the
purpose of the genealogy?
-
But even if the gaps in
certain genealogies could not be filled in, very
little would be gained, for such relatively minor
stretching could in no way begin to approach the
millions of years required by evolutionary theory.
-
It is better to be honest and
face the facts, a straightforward reading of
Scripture teaches an earth only a few thousand years
old. This is irreconcilable with the long ages
proposed by evolutionary theory.
The date of creation, as taken from the Scriptures,
has been calculated by many scholars over the
centuries resulting in many different solutions,
most all pointing to a young earth (review the table
on last page).
-
The differences in ages are
due to the starting text (Septuagint or Hebrew) and
because of different opinions and interpretations
made by the people involved.
-
Bishop Ussher prepared a
chronology of Biblical events based on a study of
the Holy Scriptures, deriving 4004 BC as the year of
the creation of the universe.
Can these chronological dates be accurately
challenged using scientific means?
-
The answer is no. Neither
geology, paleontology, nor any other means can
extract a precise date for the age of the earth and
the antiquity of man.
-
Scientists have shown that
all radioisotope dating methods, including
carbon-14, are based on unverified assumptions.
-
Historical records are still
the only reliable method of obtaining real dates.
8.
Plants and Sunlight
 If
each day of creation was a long period of time
(millions of years) then the plants, which were
created on day 3, would have had to survive without
sunlight for millions of years because the sun was
not created until day 4. This fact eliminates any
idea of the days being long periods of time.
-
In order to get around this,
some claim that the sun and stars were not created
on the fourth day, but existed for billions of years
before earth’s creation.
-
The Scriptures are very clear
that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the
fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19).
-
To state that the sun and
stars existed prior to the six days of creation is a
clear contradiction of Exodus 20:11 and is
not supported anywhere in Scripture. This type of
statement is an example of adding information into
God’s Word to support non-biblical theories.
EX
20:11
“ For in six days the
LORD
made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that
is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore
the LORD
blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus
20:11 (NASB)
9.
The Sun
How can the days of creation be
an undefined length (long age), when the fourth day,
and those after it, are measured by the sun?
-
It is clear from Genesis 1
that these days are normal solar days.
10.
The Plain
Reading of the Text
The straightforward reading of
Genesis 1 is that the days of creation are to be
taken as literal days (24-hour periods).
-
John MacArthur writes:
“But if the Lord wanted to teach us that creation
took place in six literal days, how could He have
stated it more plainly than Genesis does? The length
of the days is defined by periods of day and night
that are governed after day four by the sun and
moon.” (6, pg. 21)
-
Absolutely nothing in the
text of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 speaks of evolution or
long geological ages in the creation process. The
text itself is in fact a straightforward refutation
of all evolutionary principles. Theistic evolution
and billion-year-old-earth theories are all refuted
if we simply take the statements of Genesis at face
value.
“In
the beginning” describes the time of
God’s creation.
-
This is not a myth; it is a
historical event.
-
Genesis 1:1 gives the
principle statement with three circumstantial
clauses following v. 2, suggesting there is no gap
between 1:1 and 1:2.
-
The word
created
(Hebrew, bara) suggests God created ex nihilo,
‘out of nothing,’ it
was not a refashioning of previous materials.
-
The days of creation are
referred to as ”it was
evening and it was morning,” suggesting
24-hour days.
-
The statements ”second
day,” “third day,” also demand 24-hour days.
11.
Semantics
Semantics in linguistic study
deals with the issue of the accurate evaluation of
the meaning of expressions (words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, etc.), which are been used.
We can use semantics to call
attention to the crucial question of the exact
meaning of the Hebrew word yom.
-
Could the designation day
in Genesis 1 possibly have a figurative meaning
in this chapter?
-
The matter of semantics is
particularly important in view of the fact that the
Hebrew word yom in the singular and plural
has a variety of meanings.
-
It can have any of five
meanings: 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24
hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time;
5) a year.
-
One way semantics helps
determine the meaning of a word is how it is used in
combination with other words.
What are the semantic
guidelines for non-literal meanings of the Hebrew
word yom? In other words, what conditions
must be present in the text to make the word day
mean something other than a literal day?
-
The non-literal meanings of
the word yom are always found in connection
with prepositions, prepositional phrases with a
verb, compound constructions, formulas, and
technical expressions. In other words, non-literal
meanings of this Hebrew word have special linguistic
and contextual connections, which indicate clearly
that a non-literal meaning is intended.
-
If such special linguistic
connections are absent, the term yom has its
normal meaning of a literal 24-hour day.
Does Genesis chapter 1 contain
the needed indicators by which yom can
clearly be recognized to have a literal or
non-literal meaning? The answer is yes. The words
used in Genesis chapter 1 support a literal meaning
(24-hour day).
1.
The word yom is always
used in the singular.
2.
The word yom is always
joined to a numeral.
3.
The word yom is never
combined with a preposition or compound
construction. It always appears as a plain noun.
4.
The word yom is
consistently defined by a phrase relating to time
in the preceding sentence,
and there was evening and
there was morning. This clause serves as
a defining function for the word day.
5.
The complementary creation
account in Genesis chapter 2 contains a
non-literal, figurative meaning of the word yom.
a.
When the non-literal meaning
is intended the semantic and syntactical conventions
used throughout the Old Testament are employed.
This is the case in the non-literal usage in Genesis
2:4, in the day that the
Lord God made the earth….
b.
There is a clear semantic
difference in the usage of the word day in
Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis 2:4. In Genesis 2:4
the noun yom is joined to the preposition
in making it non-literal.
In short, the semantic and
syntactical usages of yom in Genesis 1 as
compared with semantic usages and linguistic
connections of this word in other Old Testament
passages does not allow it to mean a long period of
time or age. The Hebrew language, its grammar,
syntax, linguistic structures as well as its
semantic usage allows only for the creation days in
Genesis 1 to mean literal days.
-
Martin Luther makes the
following statement: “The Days of creation were
ordinary days in length. We must understand that
these days were actual days, contrary to the opinion
of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the
opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we
reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be
our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the
authority of Scripture for their sake.” (20, pg.
1523)
|
What
is the Age of the Earth?
Days
of Creation
CONCLUSION