Literal Genesis.

[Mastermind]

I'd like to say I no longer adhere to a literal Genesis position. For those that do, I have a few questions (I'm starting out with one problem and will work through them as they are solved/attempted to my satisfaction):

First, we have these verses (for YEC mostly):

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Light/Darkness and Day/Night are separated. In fact, light = day and darkness = night.

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

So when was light and darkness separated? If the sun was made in verse 16 and their role was to separate day from night, then why does verse 4 say they were separated already? There are two explanations I can think of:

1: literal interpretation that ID holds: Sun was created sometime between verse 1 and 3. Sun became visible in verse 16.

2: figurative interpretation. One of the creations is not speaking about literal light.

Here comes the problem for ID (and by ID I mean people who believe in an old earth but deny evolution). Bara supposedly means creation ex nihilo. I propose that it does not. The two words used for creation are asah and bara. ID proponents claim that Bara always refers to creation from nothing. That is not true since adam and eve were not made from nothing. Adam was made from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7). Eve was made from Adam's rib (Gen 2:22). Not only that, but bara and asah are used interchangeably. For example:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make(asah) man in our image

Gen 1:27 So God created (bara) man in his own image

What does this have to do with the sun? Simple.

Gen 1:16 And God made(asah) two great lights(ma or).

The word that can be used as a synonym for bara (and thus means to create) is used here. So did God make the sun in Genesis 16? Asah means to create, plain and simple. God did not make light. The word here (ma or) is a body that gives off light. Literally, an astral body. Saying this verse just made the sun visible is not true. There is no textual diference between this verse than, say, "Let us make man in our image". So where did the "Sun was revealed" come from? It gets worse. Genesis 14 says:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be(hayah, come into existance) lights(ma or) in the firmament of the heaven.

A LITERAL translation would mean that you would have to accept the sun and the moon were made right now. To say they were revealed moves into the figurative and the ID claim to a literal interpretation falls to pieces (not that it matters because neither ID nor YEC hold ALL of the creation chapters to be 100% literal truth, but that is another post for another day). I have a few more questions but I would like to get some replies for this first.

[Believer]

Well, you Mastermind make a good point, I however have no good answer to your question(s), so I will leave it up to someone else. I do believe that the Genesis creation story may be symbolic in one form or another, it may be or may not be, we don't know. But we have to take into account that God cannot be a liar. I would go as far to say that God could have strategically placed things on the earth and in the universe to throw people off, to test their faith if you will. There have been stories from people that I heard about that proposed God did this, not as a joke, but to test people. Evolution has strong evidence going for it, but what if one day we come across something that completely throws it off course what people have known to be true for over 150 years, and ID leads? The simple thing that must be realized is that matter CANNOT come from non-matter. Nothing cannot create nothing to create something, it just doesn't work. One thing is that we don't know how God works, we don't know what He thinks. When He breath-inspired men to write the Bible, this was coming from a God with infinite knowledge giving it to humans with finite knowledge, the best way God could give to a man to understand. I do believe the Bible has gaps in it, but by gaps, I mean gaps that are there for us to discover through science that God purposely did. Another thing is that this past century, the science community evolved quickly, but what will happen in say 10-20 years? Our science will be even better. Who knows what will come about. But I still believe in God. Do you still believe in God Mastermind?

[Mastermind]

Well, you Mastermind make a good point, I however have no good answer to your question(s), so I will leave it up to someone else. I do believe that the Genesis creation story may be symbolic in one form or another, it may be or may not be, we don't know. But we have to take into account that God cannot be a liar. I would go as far to say that God could have strategically placed things on the earth and in the universe to throw people off, to test their faith if you will. There have been stories from people that I heard about that proposed God did this, not as a joke, but to test people. Evolution has strong evidence going for it, but what if one day we come across something that completely throws it off course what people have known to be true for over 150 years, and ID leads? The simple thing that must be realized is that matter CANNOT come from non-matter. Nothing cannot create nothing to create something, it just doesn't work. One thing is that we don't know how God works, we don't know what He thinks. When He breath-inspired men to write the Bible, this was coming from a God with infinite knowledge giving it to humans with finite knowledge, the best way God could give to a man to understand. I do believe the Bible has gaps in it, but by gaps, I mean gaps that are there for us to discover through science that God purposely did. Another thing is that this past century, the science community evolved quickly, but what will happen in say 10-20 years? Our science will be even better. Who knows what will come about. But I still believe in God. Do you still believe in God Mastermind?

I don't buy the idea that God put evidence in places to "test our faith". Faith is a relationship between servant and master. If we can't trust God not to lie with us, why bother with anything?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Separating light and darkness I'd say isn't a problem for either YEC or OEC...but, towards you, since you're OEC, think of this:

"Let there be light"=Big Bang (photons were one of the elementary particles present)
Separating the light from the darkness=condensing matter into stars (light) by any chance? And with a planet circling the sun, you also have light and darkness separated. I'm not gonna try and sound smart, I'm just giving you something to think about so you don't have a nervous breakdown Masterbater.

[Kurieuo]

I'd like to say I no longer adhere to a literal Genesis position.

Well that came as a *shock* Yet, literal isn't always necessarily correct anyway. For example, was the snake in Genesis a literal serpent, or actually symbolic for Satan as Revelation 12:9 implies? Was the tree of life that was removed from the Garden an actual tree with fruit, or is this also symbolic for Christ who gives everlasting life? Or perhaps something more agreeable as symbolic by all Christians with Jesus' words that we must all eat Him to live forever (than again Catholics think they eat Him within the eucharist don't they?). Yet, this is where the role of theology and hermeneutics come in for it is more important to understand what is actually being said rather than literally said. Many people confuse literal for actual, but it seems obvious to me this is not always the case.

Bara supposedly means creation ex nihilo. I propose that it does not. The two words used for creation are asah and bara. ID proponents claim that Bara always refers to creation from nothing.

Just to correct one thing, I'd recommend using Day-Age or Progressive Creationists rather that ID which is something entirely different.

I don't believe it is argued that 'bara' always mean creation ex nihilo, although I'm sure some Day-Agers may have argued this. However, the subject of bara is said to be exclusively God, and bara also does possess connotations of something new being made. Luis Stadelmann in The Hebrew Conception of the World (as quoted within Holding's An Examination of Creation Ex Nihilo):

By analyzing God's efficient causality as well as his active control manifested in the world-order as a whole and in each of its aspects and details we find that (bara) expresses, together with its basic meaning of creating, the idea either of novelty or of an extraordinary result. Moreover, since (bara) is the term par excellence for God's creative activity, it is only natural that it also implies the idea of his effortless production by means of his powerful word without any help of outside intervention.

bara and asah are used interchangeably. For example:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make(asah) man in our image

Gen 1:27 So God created (bara) man in his own image

I can see a difference between the two here. In verse 26 God is speaking about what He is about to make. In verse 27 the action is being carried out. The Genesis 1 creation seems to follow this literary form, that is, God says/God made.

I'm not sure I understand any other problems you believe exist, especially assuming you are totally clear as to how Day-Age advocates usually explain the light passages. I've detailed this out before, and Rich's own response can also be read at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html.

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

Hey K, I'm going off on vacation so I won't be able to reply until after Thursday. I just want to thank you for the tree of life/Jesus part since it gave me an idea. Hopefully I'll have time to think it over on the bus ride.

[Mastermind]

Separating light and darkness I'd say isn't a problem for either YEC or OEC...but, towards you, since you're OEC, think of this:

"Let there be light"=Big Bang (photons were one of the elementary particles present)
Separating the light from the darkness=condensing matter into stars (light) by any chance? And with a planet circling the sun, you also have light and darkness separated. I'm not gonna try and sound smart, I'm just giving you something to think about so you don't have a nervous breakdown Masterbater.

It's a good thing you're not trying to sound smart. Wouldn't want to bite more than you can chew now would you?

Oh and the separating light from darkness isn't a problem for YECs and OECs, just YECs. Something that should be driven in a bit more often.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Mastermind, do you really think I need help making fun of myself

[ochotseat]

I'd like to say I no longer adhere to a literal Genesis position. .

Looks like the majority of Americans do though

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=43957

Poll: 63% of Americans think Bible literally true
Those believing Scripture is Word of God higher among Republicans than Democrats
April 24, 2005

At a time when the public display and discourse about matters of faith have been under attack, a new poll indicates most Americans — 63 percent — believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God.

When broken down into different demographics, the poll showed 77 percent of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the Bible as do 59 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of those not affiliated with either major party.

Among Evangelical Christians, 89 percent believe the Bible is literally true and just 4 percent say it is not. Among other Protestants, 70 percent believe the Bible is literally true. That view is shared by 58 percent of Catholics.

While older Americans are slightly more likely to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, 58 percent of adults under 30 hold that view.

For those that do, I have a few questions

And here's something that answers them:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... enesis.asp

[Mastermind]

Looks like the majority of Americans do though

I'm disgusted with the world so I really don't care. The majority of "Christians" can't tell Genesis from Revelation.

And here's something that answers them:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... enesis.asp

I don't see the answer to the specific question I asked. Feel free to link me directly to the article that does.

And I already read JP's article on the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and while his interpretation is literarily possible, it doesn't make sense.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

AAaaawwww, mastermind, what's wrong? Do you need a HUG?

[ochotseat]

I don't see the answer to the specific question I asked. Feel free to link me directly to the article that does.

You'll have to scour the site, because there are several links.

AAaaawwww, mastermind, what's wrong? Do you need a HUG?

Feel free to give him one.

[waynes world]

I don't see how the dinasours climbed aboard the ark in Job 38-41 even if the account were literal. God is not proving scientific creationism here, His point is to humble Job.

[ochotseat]

I don't see how the dinasours climbed aboard the ark in Job 38-41 even if the account were literal. God is not proving scientific creationism here, His point is to humble Job.

The topic is Genesis, not Job. Are you obsessed with Job?

[Deborah]

We also need to understand that YOM (Hewbrew) does not only translate to day.

Here is a wordstudy on the word YOM

Word Study — Yom

By Greg Neyman

© 2005, Answers In Creation

Published 16 March 2005



The Hebrew word for “day” is the word “Yom.” Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.

First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly is diverse as our English language. Whereas we have millions of words, the Hebrew source for the Old Testament only consists of slightly less than 8,700 words...and many of these could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.



Hebrew Dictionaries



Let's start with the possible meanings of Yom;



The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.


Other Uses of Yom



Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses.



Time



It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.

In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?



Year



Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.



Age



Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age," meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says "old age" (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."



Ago



One time Yom is translated "ago." 1 Samuel 9:20 says "As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, ..."



Always



Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime...for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29).



Season



Three times yom is translated "season." In Genesis 40:4, "...and they continued a season in ward." Again, in Joshua 24:7, "dwelt in the wilderness a long season," and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, "...a long season Israel hath been...". In each case yom represents a multi-month period.



Chronicles



When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated "chronicles" (27 times).



Continually



When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).



Ever



Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9, "to walk ever in his ways." Nineteen times Yom is translated "ever." The old testament uses "for ever" instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. I will not list them all (consult Strong's Concordance for a full listing) but here is an example. In Psalm 23:6, it says "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." Here Yom is translated as the final word of this verse, ever. Thus, Yom in this verse, and 16 others, represents eternity.



Evermore



In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated "evermore." Deuteronomy 28:29, "...and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore;" thus representing either a lifetime or eternity.



Word Usage in the Old Testament



As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.

Yom in the Creation Account

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.
The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.

Moses Other Uses of Yom

Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.

Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways


As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.



Common Young Earth Arguments



To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years, young earth theorists have come up with several arguments, none of which is supported by common Hebrew grammatical rules according to Hebrew experts (such as Dr. Walter Kaiser). These rules were created by Hebrew language experts who are young earth creationists to begin with, thus their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective.



Ordinals/Cardinals



Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. However, this is not true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, the "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link).

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1

What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.



Evening/Morning Construction



In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.

We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.

Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted! Don't fall into the trap of following the teachings of our church fathers. For more, read Church Fathers.



Literal/Figurative Argument



This argument says that you cannot use a word figuratively until after you have used it literally (see this Answers in Genesis article). The author gives two examples, which appear to be correct and follow this rule. However, is this rule valid? I see no reason to suppose that it is. You have to be careful with young earth claims about biblical interpretation methods. Again, they will invent rules that support their cause, when there is no basis for their rule in Hebrew.

In this case, it makes no difference which order the word Yom appears in, i.e. literal before figurative or vice versa. Yes, these are the first words of the Bible, but they are not the first words of mankind. All the time from Adam to Moses, men were speaking in their own languages, thus the literal interpretation via spoken language would already have been established. There was no need to suppose a literal/figurative structure.



If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...



If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.

When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"

When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!

One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.

The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.



Conclusion



With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda.

Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God's concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines.



1 Television Show and Transcript, "Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time," The John Ankerberg Show, 2005.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm