Evidence for God from Science

Hello MarkR,

This is my "short answer." If you have questions about day 4 etc. just ask.

Interpreting the days as long periods:
1) The phrase "In the beginning" (bereshit) always refers to a period of time in the Old Testament. This exact phrase is used only four other times in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34) and once with a slight variation (Hosea 9:10). One of these does not give a definition of the meaning of the phrase, but four of them do. Jeremiah 28:1 defines both here and 27:1 as encompassing the first four years of Zedekiah's eleven-year reign; about 36% of his entire reign (see Jere. 52:1). The same can be said of Jehoiakim's 11 yr. reign (see Jere. 26:1; 25:1 and 36:5). Hosea 9:10 uses the variation of the phrase to speak of a fig tree's first fruit-bearing season. All of these are periods of time and rule against "In the beginning" of Genesis 1:1 being restricted to an instant or some other part of a 24-hour period. Job 38:4-9 and Ps. 104:5-6 tell us some of what happened "In the beginning."

The one unclear passage in Jeremiah 49:34 must refer to some time within the first four years, and may also refer to Zedekiah's 4th year. I would suggest that any time after his first day on the throne would rule against the young-earth view.

2) On day three God told the land to do the producing and the Hebrew is clear that it was the land that produced the plants. God may have seeded the earth, but the text indicates natural growth (see Mark 4:26-29 and Isaiah 61:11).

3) Now let's look at the “7th day.” It does not have the phrase “and was evening and was morning.” The seventh day is separate from the six days of work. Instead of on the seventh day, closing the sixth day with “and was evening”, God simply closes off the workweek (Gen. 2:1). “And was morning” is not used on day seven, because it is not the dawning of another workday. The whole 7th day is God's rest (Gen. 2:2-3):

2. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had made, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
“3. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created to make.

In the New Testament we are given more information about this day. Hebrews 4:1-11 reads:

1. Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.
2. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
3. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, 'AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,' although those works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day, 'AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS';
5. and again in this passage, 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.'
6. Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
7. He again fixes a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, 'TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.'
8. For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.
9. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
11. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.(NASB)

The writer of Hebrews could not have been clearer; God's “SEVENTH DAY” has not ended. Throughout Hebrews chapters three and four we are told that we may enter into God's rest. The only places in these chapters that His rest is defined are in 4:3-4 and 9 where it is defined as the Seventh day of creation and is called "a Sabbath Observance/Keeping." Yes, we enter through faith, but it is God's Sabbath rest we are joining Him in!

Jesus says the same thing in John 5:17:

But He answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.'

Why did Jesus make this statement? He had just been accused of breaking the Sabbath (John 5:7-18). Jesus had healed a man and told him to pick up his bed and walk. The Jewish leaders considered healing a “work” that should be done during the first 6 days, not on the Sabbath (see Luke 13:14, 6:7, Matthew 12:10).

God is not of this world, so He is not constrained by our Sabbath. The only way Jesus' argument makes sense is if He is referring to the Father continuing His “works” of compassion as well as directing and sustaining creation (Heb. 1:3 and Col. 1:17), while His Sabbath rest from creating new things is ongoing. Likewise, Jesus was doing a “work” of compassion, not occupation or labor, on the earthly Sabbath.

One young-earth creationist, Andrew S. Kulikovsky, has attempted to counter the seventh day argument by saying that the “rest” of Hebrews 3 and 4 is the Kingdom of God. The first thing to point out is that the “Kingdom” is not mentioned anywhere in the text. As mentioned above, we may join God in His “rest” through faith, but the way in which we enter by no means defines what we are entering into. Second, as shown above, verses 3-4 and 9 actually define the rest as the “Seventh day” and “a Sabbath keeping.” The fact that the Sabbath observance is equivalent to the Seventh day can be seen in Moses' writings. By comparing the way Moses restated Genesis 2:2b-3a in Exodus 20:11 we can see the equivalence.

Gen. 2:2b — “…and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”
Ex. 20:11a — “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…”
Gen. 2:3a — “Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it…”
Ex. 20:11b — “therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Notice how Moses replaces the words “seventh day” in Gen. 2:3a with the words “Sabbath day” in Ex. 20:11b.

Exodus 31:15 also puts the seventh/ Sabbath connection together as well as the Sabbath-keeping/observance. Here it reads:

Six days you may do work, but on the Seventh day, a Sabbath (Shabbat) of Sabbath Observance (Shabbaton), holy to the Lord; everyone that does work on the Sabbath (Shabbat) must die.

The Greek noun suffix "ismos," used in Hebrews 4:9, denotes the act, state, condition or doctrine of. So the Greek word sabbatismos actually means "a Sabbath observance." Of course the Sabbath is observed through resting, which is what the text is about. So, the Greek Sabbatismos and the Hebrew Shabbaton seem to be equivalent terms, meaning — Sabbath keeping or observance; which is accomplished by resting (ceasing) from work.

The author of Hebrews seems to be using Moses' own words when he defines the rest that we may join God in as the seventh day of creation (Heb. 4:3-4) and then says that "a Sabbath keeping" or "a Sabbath observance" (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God (Heb. 4:9). The seventh day of creation, in which God is adhering to sabbatismos, is the rest that we may join Him in, through faith.

4) The sixth day is described in chapter 2:5 onward. In fact it may not end until the end of chapter three. A rain waters the land, a garden grows, Adam names a bunch of animals, etc. Remember, from a 24-hour day view Exodus 20:11 gives an exact equation between God's workweek and man's. Therefore, the pattern must be followed for the periods of work and rest. This means that all of the day 6 activities must take place in only 12 hours. This is the work period for man (Ps. 104:20-23). I used this text because it is one of the other texts dealing with creation.

I hope this helps.

Thank you for your response, dayage, and the time you must have put into it. Unfortunately, the points you offered did not bring up much that I haven't already encountered. I agree that Genesis 1:1-2 provides some difficulty for the young-earth perspective. I'd like to hear a YEC explain to me when in the creation week the earth (or water) was actually created. However, I have yet to see how the structure of the original Hebrew language would necessarily indicate to its first readers (or hearers) that "day" actually means an unspecified period of time.

This does not mean I'm closed to hear arguments or entertain possibilities. I'm willing to give YEC's and OEC's equal opportunity to show me what is true. I just feel like the onus is more on the OEC perspective since the traditional interpretation throughout the Church's history has lent itself to a young-earth perspective, or at least to 12 or 24 hour "days." Therefore, it's not just enough in my mind for the old-earth view to posit a possible, alternative interpretation of Genesis; it has to "knockout the champ" as it were.

While it does not bother me that scientific discoveries can lead to a reevaluation of how we interpret a Biblical text, I am very weary of people (both YEC and OEC) who approach the text with preconceived notions (whether they be scientific or simply dogmatic). This is why I find it so difficult to come down off the fence. It seems anyone who is trained to understand the Hebrew language was taught from one creation perspective or another and, therefore, has some sort of bias when he or she looks to translate the original meanings. I realize that is a very general statement, but that's simply how I feel as I try to sift through the "experts" in search of objectivity.

Mark,

That's cool that you're examining and thinking it through. I have to respond to your assertion though that YEC has been the predominant view traditionally. The reality is that there is ample evidence that many Church Fathers saw the days of Genesis as more than 24 hours. Some try to discount this by asserting that their view was metaphorical and not "literal". I think that's a weak argument.

Also, today's common YEC view is different in significant ways from what it was in the past. The attempt to reconcile with modern science has had significant impact on how Christians of any bent in the YEC/OEC spectrum view the passages and questions. The popular YEC position of today approaches things hermeneutically differently than earlier generations did, to my observation, and so I'd argue that today's YEC position both in method and degree of emphasis little resembles what is appealed to as YEC from the past.

The bottom line for me, while I'm staunchly OEC, is to have the ability at some level to step back and give up the need to make things fit perfectly into whatever cookie cutter view we might want to adopt. There's no question in my mind as to the creative power of God and Him being the cause of all that exists. I don't think Genesis was ever intended to represent His methodology to the degree that we attempt to parse and force the Genesis text into the hermeneutical framework that some adopt today. Many of those elements are at best secondary to the primary purpose of the text and clearly were not in the minds of those whom God used to convey this revelation in the first place.

blessings,

bart

Mark,

I'm going to expand on point #2:
Notice that Genesis 1:11-12 does not say God produced or planted the vegetation, as with the garden in Eden. God told the land itself to do the producing. The verb to "produce/bring forth" (dasha) is in the hiphil form which shows cause and is connected with earth and therefore shows that the earth is to cause the production of plants. In verse 12 the hiphil is used again to show that the earth was the cause. Mark 4:26-29 speaks of the soil producing crops by itself, but it was seeded by man first. Also see Isaiah 61:11 for a similar scenario. In the same way, God may have seeded the earth in order that it could produce plants. This indicates normal growth from seed into mature plants. Anyone who has ever started a vegetable garden, from seed, knows that it can take months to get ripe vegetables. Trees grown from seed take years to produce food.

The phrase "and was evening and was morning" has two verbs showing that evening and morning are not being connected to equal a "day." These are two points in time. Evening is the time when work was stopped and morning was the time when work began (Psalm 104:21-23). Since evening is mentioned first, then it is the ending of a previous work period. We see in Job 38 that the original darkness was caused by clouds, so this was not an "evening." "In the beginning" was the first work period and is brought to a close before the first "day." The mention of morning is describing the dawning of the work period currently being described. This I believe is the case for each "day."

Another oddity in Genesis one is that the numbered days do not have the definite article. The text should read (in Hebrew): THE day THE first, THE day THE second, THE day THE third, etc. or on THE day (bayom) THE first, on THE day THE second, on THE day THE third etc. Instead it says day one, day second, day third, etc. or one day, a second day, a third day, etc. In all other Old Testament lists of three or more numbered days, they always have the definite article on both the subject and the number (see Numbers 7:12-78, 29:13-35; Judges 20:22-30).

All other Old Testament lists containing at least three numbered subjects in a series use the definite article (see Gen. 2:11-14; Ex. 28:17-20, 39:10-13; Josh. 18:11-19:40; I Sam. 17:13; II Sam. 3:2-5; I Chron. 2:13-15, 3:1-3, 3:15, 8:1-2, 8:39, 12:9-13, 23:19, 24:7-18, 24:23, 25:9-31, 26:2-3, 26:4-5, 26:10-11, 27:2-15; Job 42:14; Isa. 37:30; Ezek. 10:14; Zech. 6:2-3, 8:19). The exceptions in these numbered series are the first number in the list or if the list exceeds ten, numbers eleven and above do not always have definite articles with the number (see I Chron. 12:9-13, 24:7-18, 25:9-31, 27:2-15). The last exception is found in II Samuel 3:2-5, where the first two numbers do not have the article. All the above lists include the article on the objects being numbered unless they are proper names.

As mentioned above, Genesis one deviates from these patterns. It does not include the definite article (on the number or the object) until day six, but even here the article is only on the number not the object. Some suggest that this was just the author's style, but Moses deviates from this “style” in his numbered lists outside of Genesis one (see above) where he parallels the style of other writers.

One last idea I've come up with:
Others have argued that God defined day when He “called the light day.” They say that this shows that God meant normal days. I agree that God defined the daylight period as day and that this was part of the normal cycle that we understand as a day. But, I believe that this is evidence against understanding the creation periods as 24-hour days. The text of Genesis one shows us that when God took the name of one already existing subject and applied it to a new one, the new subject was a lesser or smaller one. Keep in mind that the creation “day” like the universe and planet earth was already in existence, because the bringing forth of light occurred during the first creation period.

Examples:
New/smaller subject
“And God called the firmament heavens” (Gen. 1:7-8)
“And God called the dry land earth” (Gen. 1:9-10)
“And God called the light day” (Gen. 1:3-5)

Original/larger subject
Heavens = universe (Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4)
Earth = planet (Gen. 1:1, 2, 15; 2:4)
Day = an age (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:2, 3)

It only makes sense that this pattern would be the same for “day.” Since light is the renamed subject, there must be a larger “day” in the text. There are only two possibilities. Some have suggested that “days” in verse 14 could refer to 24-hour periods, but as far as a comparison goes it is in the plural rather than the singular. Also, the separate mention of day and night in this verse as well as in verses 16 and 18, harkens back to verse 5 and seems to indicate that “days” is just a reference to multiple periods of light. In other words Moses nowhere in Genesis one, defines a 24-hour day consisting of both day (light) and night (darkness).

Regardless of the understanding of “days” in verse 14, the only place in Genesis one where “day,” in the singular, can have a separate and larger definition (following the above pattern) is where it is used for each “day” of creation. Therefore, these are not normal days, they are ages.
There is another pattern in the text that needs to be mentioned, so it doesn't cause confusion. When God renamed an existing subject, the new name redefines the old subject in a more limited way.

Examples:
“And the darkness He called night” — instead of encompassing the whole of the earth (Gen. 1:2), the darkness now covers only half of it at any given time. It is restricted by the sun and the horizon. Also, instead of being a continuous darkness it is now limited in time as well.

“And the collection of waters He called Seas” — now, instead of being one global ocean of waters (Gen. 1:2, 7), they are divided into separate seas. These are separated by the continents.

If they are ages, are they ever translated to specifically be called an ages. Is that for literary reasons? Tradition perhaps? I mean a OEC position is sort of reasonable if it correlates to the facts, which be that the world is very, very old and evolution is how we got here.

I guess one of the implications of Evolution would be that not only are all human beings related, but all life on earth, a tree, a animal...They are your cousins, literally. The Old Earth position is a okí«j sort of.

I believe someone did raise the point that Jesus, sacrifice would of been pointless if there was no Adam, but if the story is Allegorical, then Adam represents every man. It is true that all people make mistakes. So the story although most probably not historical contains a few good points.(yes i have read it, all fifty dead boring chapters...actually some of it was quite exciting! But wrapped with sleepy boring bits. Shame I haven't read a lot else from the "good" book really)

Sorry I have not replied sooner, June has been a crazy month! Anyway, Bart, I would be very interested to check out any sources you might have about the Church fathers and what they believed. I was initially intrigued when I first heard that many of them believed in long creation days. However, in my limited research I have only been able to pin down a few from the Alexandrian school of thought such as Clement and Augustine. And even their interpretations were very different from the OEC perspective advocated by Hugh Ross and websites like this one. So, again, if you have more information on this subject I would really like to examine it.

Dayage, you have certainly made interesting points (again, many of which I have been over before), but the difficulty I am having is not whether OEC arguments make sense or not. In fact, many of them make quite a bit of sense to me. The problem I have is trying to figure out whether the original Hebrew supports the OEC or the YEC arguments. For example, YEC's bring up the argument that when "day" is meant to be taken as a longer period of time, there are certain indicators present in the text such as a preposition (i.e. "in the day of . . ."). On the other hand, you have Gleason Archer who says that the absence of a definite article means that the days are not meant to be taken in a definite sense. And then I find that days six and seven DO have the definite articles, yet those are two days in particular that OEC's talk about and try to supply evidence for how they are not 24-hour days.

The point is, I sense the absence of objective criteria on this subject. Every resource I turn to in order to become more knowledgeable of the original language has some kind of bent one way or the other. I also feel like way too many people (on both sides of the issue) treat conflicting evidence like anomalies to be sidestepped rather than legitimate challenges to their view. One of the more significant problems I have with the OEC view is the way they handle Exodus 20:11. I'm not saying I think it's impossible to reconcile this verse with an old earth interpretation, I just think the typical OEC answer to this topic is rather weak.

The bottom line is, neither position is obviously or glaringly correct or incorrect in my mind at this point. And, trust me, I'm not singling out OEC's. I am just as hard, if not harder, on YEC's when I dialogue with them (much to my family's chagrin).

It's good to read your post, Mark. I haven't studied Hebrew, so I don't know about the words, tenses, articles, etc. I just know that I haven't seen evidence from either side that completely satisfies me (YEC satisfies me less, for sure, however). But if it were more of a burning issue with me, I would've checked out Schroeder's more by now . . . Maybe I'll do that today . . .

Hey Mark,

Maybe you can give me some specifics of what you think are the weaknesses in my other replies.

The preposition is not the problem, it's the definite article. I mentioned this above in my second reply. The only thing I did not talk about was day 7. That is because it gives a confusing story. In Genesis 2:2 it (yom) is connected with the preposition, but includes the article. So, it reads bayom. In Genesis 2:3 it does not have the preposition and does not have the article. I specifically talked about day six.

To see the importance of the article, even with the preposition, look at Numbers 7:10-84. Verses 10 and 84 use beyom, on the subject, to indicate a non-specific yom (all of them together), where as verses 12, 18, 24, etc. use bayom (with the article) for each individual yom. So, I side with Archer.

What have you heard (OEC) about Exodus 20:11? It is an analogy. Yom-for-yom. The length one's yom does not effect it. Just read where it is repeated in Exodus 31:15-17. At the end of verse 17 you will find a huge problem if you were to take this as young-earthers do. If you do not see it I'll explain further. P.S. it really is a problem when you see how the phrase is used for man.

Also, "In the beginning" is not included in Ex. 20:11. At AIG they try to argue around the use of asa here instead of bara, but it really does make a diference.

What is wrong with the Hebrews 4 argument?


Kristoffer,

Go to this link and you will see some "days" that are long periods. Look near the bottom of the page.. No the word age is not used even when it is clear. Most translations will come with commentaries. Most Bibles just try to give the English equivalent, so yom = day.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=30

I did not mean to imply that the arguments you presented before are weak. My frustration is not knowing enough about Hebrew to discern myself how strong or weak many arguments are, OEC or YEC. However, in the case of the Exodus 20 issue, I have not yet heard any really convincing arguments from OEC's that explain to me why Moses must be using an analogy when he refers to the creation week. Again, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not in a great position to argue that he isn't using an analogy, it's just that from the things I've read this point seems to be a trouble spot for OEC's regardless of how nonchalantly some of them have dealt with it.

MarkR,

I don't think the argument of analogy to pattern as opposed to literal days is nonchalant or weak at all, but you'll need to make that determination on your own. In terms of the language from Hebrew (and I'm not a Hebrew Scholar either, although I do have some training in Greek and in Hermeneutics in general) all you have to do is look at the passage and ask yourself, what in that passage requires the days alluded to in Genesis to be literal 24 hours days? Clearly it's a pattern of 6 days followed by one day of rest which forms the basis of the appeal and the analogy is neither made weaker or stronger by seeing those days in Genesis as either.

Now, if you can present a case from the text itself that argues that Moses had this particular configuration in mind in Exodus then you'd have a strong case because there is the same human author in both cases. It begs the question however, to argue that Moses' use of the pattern in Exodus requires literal days in Genesis when Moses is the human author in Genesis and the means existed for him to make that more clear if that were his intent there. Assuming you don't subscribe to some form of verbal dictation which takes Moses out of the picture as some form of amanuensis, then it begs the question as to why you or anyone else would rely on the passage in Exodus to project onto the passage in Genesis what Genesis itself doesn't assume or make crystal clear. If anything, I think it argues that Moses wording in Genesis was deliberate to leave that uncertaintly clear because either he himself was unsure based upon what he was transmitting from some form of verbal tradition or other sources extant or familiar to him or he simply wasn't sure based on whatever method God used to inspire him in his writing and thus chose not to place the language or phrases he could have selected which would have eliminated the ambiguity and doubt.

Too, he simply may not have asked the same questions with regard to these issues that we do today in the context of a technologically precise post-modern society. At best the literal quality of the days in Genesis are secondary to the purpose of the text which I believe is one of atttribution to God as the first cause of earthly and human history from which God's selection of Israel as His chosen people was present from the very beginning.

While it's possible certainly that anyone from either side of the question as it is commonly framed may address it "non-chalantly" I think at the very least it needs to be recognized that very competant Hebrew Scholars and hernemeutical experts of good will and good faith have examined these passages and their relationship and come to conclusions that are not always in agreement and which support both positions. Questioning only one side of the argument in this regard and assuming the other must be approaching it disingenuously or non-chalantly to me only indicates the bias of the party making that generalization and applying it unilaterally. That's not directed at you personally Mark. It can be true in either direction.

blessings,

bart

Bart,

I, in no way, meant to generalize anything and I apologize if it came across that way. I only meant that some OEC's have regarded the Exodus 20 issue in a rather cavalier manner. Of course I realize that not all OEC's treat it that way and that many YEC's do the same thing when arguing other points. I was just trying to say that this particular OEC argument has primarily been presented to me in a way that seems to assume out of hand that Moses is using an analogy here without presenting much evidence to support the "certainty" of the claim. Hopefully that makes more sense.

Anyway, my big hang-up with this passage, or at least with this interpretation of it, is the interchangeable use of the word yom. I feel like if I am going to take Exodus 20:11 as an analogy, then I have to allow for a very fluid transition between 24-hour period and long/undefined period with little to no textual indication that a change in meaning is occurring. I'm just not very comfortable doing that without a really good reason to do so.

MarkR wrote:Bart,

I, in no way, meant to generalize anything and I apologize if it came across that way. I only meant that some OEC's have regarded the Exodus 20 issue in a rather cavalier manner. Of course I realize that not all OEC's treat it that way and that many YEC's do the same thing when arguing other points. I was just trying to say that this particular OEC argument has primarily been presented to me in a way that seems to assume out of hand that Moses is using an analogy here without presenting much evidence to support the "certainty" of the claim. Hopefully that makes more sense.

Anyway, my big hang-up with this passage, or at least with this interpretation of it, is the interchangeable use of the word yom. I feel like if I am going to take Exodus 20:11 as an analogy, then I have to allow for a very fluid transition between 24-hour period and long/undefined period with little to no textual indication that a change in meaning is occurring. I'm just not very comfortable doing that without a really good reason to do so.

Respectfully MarkR,

And no disrespect intended, but the issue isn't the word yom being used as more than a 24 hour period. There is no question at all among reputable Hebrew Scholars that yom can mean more than a literal date. There is no reason why yom in the Exodus passage can't be 24 hours and yom in the Genesis passage can't be more than 24 hours. The word yom is used that way and can be used that way by the same author in different contexts.

The meaning of yom in Genesis and in Exodus are dependent primarily on their own contexts independent of one another. There's no reason why they can't differ in their immediate contexts and there's no reason why the appeal in Exodus isn't the same regardless of the specific contextual use in Genesis.

Let the text speak for itself in both instances. If you come to the conclusion that the context in both instances is a 24 hour day, then that's fine. Go with it and simply be open that you may change your mind at some point in the future if faithfulness to the text demands it.

What I'm concerned I may be hearing here is some desire that these usages have to be consistent with one another because you're somehow more comfortable with that for reasons that are outside of the text. Simplicity perhaps. If that's the case then you run the risk of eisogesis or forcing the text to meet your own needs and desires. If that's what is driving it, then regardless of which interpretation you take, the text is secondary. As you say, that's something that both OECs and YECs can do and only they and the Holy Spirit are in a position to make that assessment. For my part, I've tried to give up the need to make everything fit neatly into my interpretative frameworks a long time ago. While I can and do at times get emotionally involved in my studies and thinking on these issues, at its root, it's not an emotional issue. I'm fine with being wrong on something and realigning as needed. I'm also fine with admitting I don't know something and even with admitting I may never know the precise answer to some questions I may ask which realistically were never in the minds of the human author or original audience of a scripture passage.

In any event, I think the appeal to Exodus is a something of a red herring. Just because I use the word in English most of the time to mean a 24 hour day, doesn't mean I won't and don't use idioms like, "The day of the Romans" when it suits me and meets my intended meaning. Moses isn't limited either. If Moses and God had wanted to make it painfully clear in Genesis so there was little doubt as to the length of days, they could have done so, but obviously didn't. My own opinion is that some veins of YEC are far more concerned about defending their hermeneutic then they are honestly examining the text, but then I have to admit that there are OECs who may well start with a similar need. That's a heart issue of any individual and not unique to either position in general. I don't think there is anything solely textual in the Exodus passage that clears up the Genesis passage. I think it's appealed to primarily by those on the basis of convenience to support a decision on meaning that they've already made.

Anyway, take it or leave it. You're entitled to your opinions and beliefs as well and I wish you well as you work through these elements.

blessings,

bart

Bart,

First of all, thank you for your responses. Regardless of what we end up agreeing or disagreeing on, I appreciate dialoging with you. That being said, we see eye-to-eye on more things than one might think. All either of us wants is the truth. Whether God started creating thousands or billions of years ago, it's not going to change the way we worship Him. I'm not emotionally invested in either interpretation and my soul is at peace with the notion that I may never know for certain.

So, I assure you that I don't have any preconceived needs or desires when I approach the text. If anything, I would actually like to be able to show that Moses IS using an analogy because a lot of the day-age theory makes sense to me and I'd be one step closer to coming down off the fence. If I find that the YEC's are correct about Exodus 20:11 then I'm basically back to square one because there's a whole bunch of stuff they'd have to clear up for me back in Genesis.

When I said I was uncomfortable translating the text a certain way, it wasn't because I was uncomfortable with the implication. I'm just uneasy about the method. I realize "yom" doesn't always mean a 24-hour or 12-hour period. But it seems to me that when it is meant to be taken as a longer or undefined period, it is used as a figure of speech like in Genesis 2:4. Even in English when we say things like, "Back in my day . . ." or as you said, "In the day of the Romans . . ." there are language indicators being used to preserve the meaning of the words. (I would even be willing to accept G. L. Archer's interpretation of the creation days as having indefinite articles, though I still don't quite understand why days 6 and 7 DO have definite articles).

What makes me uncomfortable at this point is no one has shown me where the language indicators are (or at least shown me some kind of precedent elsewhere in the OT) that tell me how Moses can use "yom" in the 24-hour sense when talking about the Sabbath day in one sentence, then "yom" in the undefined-period sense in the next sentence, then back to 24-hours in the sentence after that.

I'm not saying I've ruled out the possibility that Moses could be using an analogy here and, as I said, I would actually like to agree with you here. But it's actually the objective side of me saying, "Where is the textual support for this?" and making sure that I don't just accept it as fact because I want to.

Sorry Mark,

I thought that I had broken down Zechariah 14 here. Go to this post, about 2/3 of the way down:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=30

If you agree that it talks about a long period of time, then your long yom and short yom are together in verse 14:7

But it shall be one day (yom echad) which shall be known to the LORD, not day (yom), nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

dayage wrote:
Kristoffer,

Go to this link and you will see some "days" that are long periods. Look near the bottom of the page.. No the word age is not used even when it is clear. Most translations will come with commentaries. Most Bibles just try to give the English equivalent, so yom = day.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=30

Okay.