Evidence for God from Science

For a long time, many millennia, creation has been argued and now in the modern era, science has been proposed as the source of answers to the many mysteries of creation. But that is a mistake as science is too limited in its scope to capture all that was done by God in the past.

It has been said that God took millions of years to create what we know about and it has been said that it would be deceptive for God to create with the appearance of age.

Both ideas are false and should be discarded. Why? Because God does things in a manner that leaves no doubt who accomplished the task. Throughout the Old Testament, we have story after story where God tells his people to do certain things and when they respond, he reduces their numbers or has them proceed in a manner that is unusal or unnormal activity.

In the story of the fall of Jericho, God has the people of Israel march around the city for a certain amount of days, then blow trumpets, this is not a normal military maneuver when one is expected to conquer a fortified city. Then years later, God calls Gideon to raise up an army to defend His people, 10,000 responded yet God pared this number down to 300

In both cases, the Israelites were victorious. Why? Because a). God does not share the glory and his people needed to see Him at work, b). God wanted to show both the Israelites and the pagan societies that He alone is God and that there is no other god.

The same goes for creation. Yes God had many methods available to Him, He is capable of creating in many varieties of ways, yet he chose one. Why is it not the day/age concept? Because this method weakens God's testimony. How? If God chose this method, non-believing observers would question God's power and ability and it allow them to ridicule Him because He did not demonstrate His power to the fullest. Which then allows these unbelievers to dismiss God as powerless and not worthy of their love and respect.

This method would undermine His purpose to demonstrate to all that He alone is God and He alone could do this event. Anyone, could take millions of years to do something, it is nothing special. Nature alone could do it. Also, it undermines His message to all those He created, His words mean nothing and makes Him a hypocrite as God is very specific about what he does and how he does it.

Is creating with age deceptive? Not at all, God does not lie thus creating with age is perfectly normal and necessary for what God had in mind. God created in a certain way for a certain purpose, it leaves NO DOUBT that God did it. Only God could have done it in this fashion and this action acts as a testimony to the great power of God and leaves no one with an excuse to not believe nor opens any doors for people to mock Him. “ The God of Genesis 1 is indeed the universal God”

He stands alone as the only being capable of performing such an act--
Jer 32: 17'Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth
by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm!
Nothing is too difficult for You

Then we have the following verse which speaks of the testimony the heavens bring:
Psalm 19:1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Science looks at the universe and says, it can't be done that way it must be done this way but science is wrong as it is impeded by human understanding while God is saying—wait, lean not unto thine own understanding (prov. 3:5) look at Me. I did it this way and all of science's rules and laws are subject to me I am the Master of all.

Science is based on secular thinking, corruption, unregenerated thought, fallible and limited and God says 'what fellowship does righteousness have with unrighteousness?' (paraphrase)

The statement is quite clear, the believer must rid themselves of all that is not of God and adopt that which is of God, meaning the believer does not blend man's ideas with that which is holy but proclaims what God reveals to them. To do anything less diminishes what God accomplished, undermines His purpose for doing it in a certain way and allows the unbeliever to shun & mock God because God is made out to be a fool.

God created in a certain manner to show that He, the God of Israel, the God of the New Testament Christian is Lord of all and His Power is more powerful than anything man can conceive, He is to be feared and we are to be humble before him.

In the Old Testament, after these displays of power, the unbelievers, came to the Israelites, seeking peace as they had heard who their God was and what He could do. Today's non-Christian does not fear God in this manner, because believers have so compromised themselves and so adopted secular thinking that there is no power to observe nor to fear.

Science is limited, science cannot see into the past, the past is gone, nor can it determine what God did if it walks with unrighteousness in its quest to see and understand Him.

Did God create in 6 normal 24 hour days---of course or He wouldn't be God of the Bible. He would be a liar and a hypocrite, which destroys everything else that is said in those pages.
Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing.
Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
The Bible is very clear, even science is included in this creative act and it has no authority to change what God has said.

Forum Monk,

I'm glad to see you moving from the seats into the field and I appreciate the sincerity and thinking you are presenting below. Here is some interaction and things for you to consider that I hope you will interact with.

For a long time, many millennia, creation has been argued and now in the modern era, science has been proposed as the source of answers to the many mysteries of creation. But that is a mistake as science is too limited in its scope to capture all that was done by God in the past.

Creation certainly has been a major issue for quite some time and the reason is obvious. Our origins and the presence or lack of God in the same is core to our world view, our understanding and interaction with our environment, the framework of our thinking and our hope or despair when considering the future.

It is an overstatement to suggest that science has been proposed as "the" source of answers to the mysteries involved. For some, perhaps, that may be the case. However, for many it is seen as "one" source in addition to others and as God Himself within the Scriptures has pointed to the creation as a means of His general revelation, there certainly is legitimacy in looking to understand and see God's handiwork and by that means there are many who are filled with joy, awe and wonder.

There are many, in my opinion, who maybe base their faith on a "God of the Gaps" point of view who in the absence of a viable explanation point to the seeming mystery and then base their faith or gird up their faith on the work of God to explain it away. I believe there are mysteries and unanswerable questions that do indeed point to God, but I do not base my faith on those issues. I place it in the Word of God and what it says and try to be very careful about reading in things it doesn't.

Science certainly has limits and it will never and can never answer the question of origins or cause and direction as it relates to a creator. It is a legitimate tool however to understand the world around us and it is legitimate to expect that Specific Revelation in the Scriptures and General Revelation in Nature must agree where they cover common ground. Where they appear not to, it is legitimate to seek a reconciliation. I certainly believe Scripture trumps science for the Christian. However, I reject the concept that especially on non-cardinal issues such as natural science and the working of the physical laws and processes of the Universe that the only legitimate means for a Christian is to study the text of Scripture, draw conclusion solely from Scripture and then measure all science against it. There is too much room there, in my opinion, for the interpretation and exegetical methods of the the person looking to Scripture to read in their own preconceived ideas or make honest mistakes and the end result is that the cause of Christ is embarrassed and Christians made to look foolish.

It has been said that God took millions of years to create what we know about and it has been said that it would be deceptive for God to create with the appearance of age.

Both ideas are false and should be discarded. Why? Because God does things in a manner that leaves no doubt who accomplished the task. Throughout the Old Testament, we have story after story where God tells his people to do certain things and when they respond, he reduces their numbers or has them proceed in a manner that is unusal or unnormal activity.

I certainly agree and have stated before that I don't necessarily believe that God would be deceptive if in fact the universe and earth was created in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago. It certainly begs the question however if that hermeneutic is correct, then why the apparent huge dichotomy between the current state of Scientific understanding and it is legitimate to pursue understanding in that field. I don't find it threatening at all to my faith to do so. If God's Word is reliable (and I believe it is) then I must be willing to accept Truth in it as well as Truth in the creation. If I am reading Scripture wrongly, I want to be corrected and I want to uphold the truth. If my ignorance, pride or unwillingness to let go of incorrect understandings stands in the way of my growth or is a stumbling block to others then I want that cleared away and God's Word and truth to be first and foremost in terms of priority.

In the story of the fall of Jericho, God has the people of Israel march around the city for a certain amount of days, then blow trumpets, this is not a normal military maneuver when one is expected to conquer a fortified city. Then years later, God calls Gideon to raise up an army to defend His people, 10,000 responded yet God pared this number down to 300

In both cases, the Israelites were victorious. Why? Because a). God does not share the glory and his people needed to see Him at work, b). God wanted to show both the Israelites and the pagan societies that He alone is God and that there is no other god.

God certainly does work counter to human understanding and methods for reasons that I suspect include what you are saying here. You appear to be suggesting however, that this represents a formula or pattern by which we can determine in every circumstance what understanding should be accepted by the one that, at this time and place in the context of our current understanding, appears to give more direct credit or glory to God. Frankly, my God is bigger than such a formula, and I choose to leave it in God's hands as to how He will act and accomplish his purposes. I certainly will not presume on the basis of my finite understanding and perspective to use that as the determining factor of what explanation I will accept in circumstances at a given point and time, unless God clearly reveals that in Scripture.

The same goes for creation. Yes God had many methods available to Him, He is capable of creating in many varieties of ways, yet he chose one. Why is it not the day/age concept? Because this method weakens God's testimony. How? If God chose this method, non-believing observers would question God's power and ability and it allow them to ridicule Him because He did not demonstrate His power to the fullest. Which then allows these unbelievers to dismiss God as powerless and not worthy of their love and respect.

You've certainly established a hermeneutic here. Is it exegesis or eisogesis? Since when is God subject to the response of man as to how he will accomplish His will? Is God's "testimony" subject to the response of man? Assuming your view is correct, why would God need 6 days to accomplish this? He could bring it about instantaneously in one moment, right? Wouldn't that fit your presentation better?

Is time relevant to God, or is it an issue tied more to man's perspective? Are you so sure of your presentation here that you're willing to state with confidence that you understand the mind and nature of God to where there is no mystery or sovereignty involved that would allow Him to move outside your analogous thinking here?

This method would undermine His purpose to demonstrate to all that He alone is God and He alone could do this event. Anyone, could take millions of years to do something, it is nothing special. Nature alone could do it. Also, it undermines His message to all those He created, His words mean nothing and makes Him a hypocrite as God is very specific about what he does and how he does it.

Really? Anyone could do this in a million years? Speak matter into existance from nothing? Weave the tapestry of mass and energy into existence? Nature alone could do this? You see the question of 6 - 24 hour days as a lynchpin because if God did it any other way it would diminish his Glory?

That amazes me. I don't see that tied to it at all. God did it the way He chose to do it for His own good pleasure and reasons and I find no reason in either scenario that diminishes Him at all.

Were I to presume that my understanding was the determining issue involved I can see where some of this might have some impact. Thankfully, my faith is not in my understanding.

Is creating with age deceptive? Not at all, God does not lie thus creating with age is perfectly normal and necessary for what God had in mind. God created in a certain way for a certain purpose, it leaves NO DOUBT that God did it. Only God could have done it in this fashion and this action acts as a testimony to the great power of God and leaves no one with an excuse to not believe nor opens any doors for people to mock Him. “ The God of Genesis 1 is indeed the universal God”

We've agreed on this before, but I see some need to clarify. If God created with apparent age for the purpose of deceiving Man and requiring faith on man's part to accept the creation account, then I certainly would have a huge problem with that. That would make God a deceiver and would be contrary to His Holiness.

However, if the means of God's creation involved forces and methods outside of what we currently understand and it is that lack of understanding on our part that is causing us to come to wrong conclusions, then that is simply a result of our finite nature and God's purposes and integrity are not in question.

You appear to be confusing the two in my opinion and arguing that God may indeed have created this deception in order to force us to a position of whether we will choose to accept by faith a creation account that is contrary to the evidence just to show that we value God more. That is a very dangerous, twisted point of view in my opinion if I am understanding you correctly. The God of the Bible that I see is internally consistent with the values and truth He reveals.

He stands alone as the only being capable of performing such an act--
Jer 32: 17'Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth
by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm!
Nothing is too difficult for You

I see nothing compromised by either view in the context of this verse. God's power is clearly the driving force and source in either a YEC or OEC view.

Then we have the following verse which speaks of the testimony the heavens bring:
Psalm 19:1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Absolutely. If the heavans are telling the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (this the natural revelation correct?) then why would you imagine that God would purposely establish them to say something different than what he says in other portions of His Word? Wouldn't it be better to listen to what they are saying, and work to be careful to not overstate or read more into it than what it says clearly?

Again, there's no element of time present here to determine or indicate that one scenario is to me favored over the other, in terms of the Glory God receives.

Science looks at the universe and says, it can't be done that way it must be done this way but science is wrong as it is impeded by human understanding while God is saying—wait, lean not unto thine own understanding (prov. 3:5) look at Me. I did it this way and all of science's rules and laws are subject to me I am the Master of all.

Science certainly is materialistically based and we agree it has limitations in this regard and that it is very possible to take the materialistic basis of science and extend it beyond into a metaphysical realm which fails to account for God. God himself however is the one who established these laws and systems. He certainly is above them and I believe can and does intervene. You appear to believe you have an inside track to determining when and where that is and to invoke it as likely when you find scientific findings or resultant conclusions not to your liking.

Science is based on secular thinking, corruption, unregenerated thought, fallible and limited and God says 'what fellowship does righteousness have with unrighteousness?' (paraphrase)

Good heavens! Science is a method which is value neutral. What we do with its results and how we interpret them certainly can be and is influenced with our values.

You apparantly wish to create a dichotomous or dualistic system here that in effect equates to "God and Bible = good" and "Nature and Science = bad." How sad. God created this world and said it was "good" and this is stated directly in the passages you want to use as a basis apparently to say otherwise. Certainly sin has entered into the picture and we live in a fallen world and this has impacted and affected a great deal. Certainly the Bible is specific and direct revelation of God and as believers you and I would both affirm it is first and foremost to be the basis of belief and faith.

What a sad view of science and the revelation God Himslef says is present in this world that reflects His handiwork and declares His glory. How sad that you appear to be missing the history of many of the great men of science who developed much of the scientific method and who believed with all their hearts in God and rejoiced in learning more of Him and His creation. How sad that your point of view here would appear to discount the myriad of men and women who work and toil in the field of science both applied and theorhetical and you would appear by these statements to be casting doubt or aspertions upon their faith and calling by relegating science well beyond a methodolog and declaring it in opposition to God Himself by its inherent characteristics.

Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing.

Beautiful verse and one I love. Where is the idea of 6 - 24 hour days present to make your point within it?

Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

No argument here either. Where is the idea of 6 - 24 hour days present to make your point within it?

The Bible is very clear, even science is included in this creative act and it has no authority to change what God has said.

Well then. Your task is clear. Let's see you demonstrate your point from the Bible in a clear exegetical manner, preferable from Genesis 1 & 2 where these concepts are pulled from the text rather than superimposed with the logic construction you've built above with a few proof texts.

Blessings,

Bart

Awesome, Bart, good job and well said

"Really? Anyone could do this in a million years? Speak matter into existance from nothing? Weave the tapestry of mass and energy into existence? Nature alone could do this? You see the question of 6 - 24 hour days as a lynchpin because if God did it any other way it would diminish his Glory? "

What is diminished in not accepting a literal 24 hour days is the credibility of those who wrote the account. If the Bible is, in fact, the inspired word of God, then it stands to reason that God provided the information to be related. Of course, one can deny the Bible is inspired by God. No problem. One cannot have it both ways.

hfd wrote:"Really? Anyone could do this in a million years? Speak matter into existance from nothing? Weave the tapestry of mass and energy into existence? Nature alone could do this? You see the question of 6 - 24 hour days as a lynchpin because if God did it any other way it would diminish his Glory? "

What is diminished in not accepting a literal 24 hour days is the credibility of those who wrote the account. If the Bible is, in fact, the inspired word of God, then it stands to reason that God provided the information to be related. Of course, one can deny the Bible is inspired by God. No problem. One cannot have it both ways.

Or one could say there God's inspired word means something other than what we have always thought...

hfd wrote:"Really? Anyone could do this in a million years? Speak matter into existance from nothing? Weave the tapestry of mass and energy into existence? Nature alone could do this? You see the question of 6 - 24 hour days as a lynchpin because if God did it any other way it would diminish his Glory? "

What is diminished in not accepting a literal 24 hour days is the credibility of those who wrote the account. If the Bible is, in fact, the inspired word of God, then it stands to reason that God provided the information to be related. Of course, one can deny the Bible is inspired by God. No problem. One cannot have it both ways.

It must be a great comfort to have figured out that literal 24 hour days are what is meant in Genesis. Would you be so kind as to share how you've arrived at this irrefutable conclusion and put the matter to rest for the rest of us who are still struggling to reconcile everything involved here?

Where did you study Hebrew by the way, as I assume you must have a great amount of skill in the area to have accomplished this.

Looking forward to your support for your assertion.

Bart

However, I reject the concept that especially on non-cardinal issues such as natural science and the working of the physical laws and processes of the Universe that the only legitimate means for a Christian is to study the text of Scripture, draw conclusion solely from Scripture and then measure all science against it. There is too much room there, in my opinion, for the interpretation and exegetical methods of the the person looking to Scripture to read in their own preconceived ideas or make honest mistakes and the end result is that the cause of Christ is embarrassed and Christians made to look foolish.

There is strength in foolishness, Canuckster, as you well know. As soon as you stand for Christ many will think you're foolish. But if you think the reconciliation of God and science brought about by reinterpretation of scripture is somehow more acceptable to the cause of Christ and less foolish looking to the outside world, I must, with all due respect, say you are deluded.

God certainly does work counter to human understanding and methods for reasons that I suspect include what you are saying here. You appear to be suggesting however, that this represents a formula or pattern

No it is not a formula. God has revealed his nature and demonstrates He will not share glory with anyone. That is why he works "counter to human understanding".

Assuming your view is correct, why would God need 6 days to accomplish this? He could bring it about instantaneously in one moment, right? Wouldn't that fit your presentation better?

You missed the point. It is not my presentation. It is God's. He had a purpose for doing what he did in six days.

You see the question of 6 - 24 hour days as a lynchpin because if God did it any other way it would diminish his Glory?

That amazes me. I don't see that tied to it at all.

If you miss the importance of this you miss seeing a significant part of what God was trying to manifest.

You appear to be confusing the two in my opinion and arguing that God may indeed have created this deception in order to force us to a position of whether we will choose to accept by faith a creation account that is contrary to the evidence just to show that we value God more. That is a very dangerous, twisted point of view in my opinion if I am understanding you correctly. The God of the Bible that I see is internally consistent with the values and truth He reveals.

God does not deceive. What He has done and how He did it are first to glorify Himself, and second to provide for our needs, most important of which is our salvation.

You appear to believe you have an inside track to determining when and where that is and to invoke it as likely when you find scientific findings or resultant conclusions not to your liking.

Your statement, not mine. You have misrepresented me.

You apparantly wish to create a dichotomous or dualistic system here that in effect equates to "God and Bible = good" and "Nature and Science = bad." How sad. God created this world and said it was "good" and this is stated directly in the passages you want to use as a basis apparently to say otherwise. Certainly sin has entered into the picture and we live in a fallen world and this has impacted and affected a great deal.

You critize the dichotomy and then confirm it with the admittance that sin has corrupted that which God once declared good. It is not my dichotomy, it is the one created by a fallen and unregenerate creation.

What a sad view of science and the revelation God Himslef says is present in this world that reflects His handiwork and declares His glory.

I disagree Canuckster. The glory of God is made manifest inspite of science. Even the most remote, uneducated, human can behold God's glory.

How sad that you appear to be missing the history of many of the great men of science who developed much of the scientific method and who believed with all their hearts in God and rejoiced in learning more of Him and His creation. How sad that your point of view here would appear to discount the myriad of men and women who work and toil in the field of science both applied and theorhetical and you would appear by these statements to be casting doubt or aspertions upon their faith and calling by relegating science well beyond a methodolog and declaring it in opposition to God Himself by its inherent characteristics.

You have put words in my mouth and then criticize what I have never said nor represented.

Well then. Your task is clear. Let's see you demonstrate your point from the Bible in a clear exegetical manner, preferable from Genesis 1 & 2 where these concepts are pulled from the text rather than superimposed with the logic construction you've built above with a few proof texts.

I have done it already on this board. And further I have made my point many times over whether you agree with it or not. Now, why don't you tell the board what you believe?

Canuckster1127 wrote:It must be a great comfort to have figured out that literal 24 hour days are what is meant in Genesis. Would you be so kind as to share how you've arrived at this irrefutable conclusion and put the matter to rest for the rest of us who are still struggling to reconcile everything involved here?

Where did you study Hebrew by the way, as I assume you must have a great amount of skill in the area to have accomplished this.

Where did Mr. Deem study Hebrew btw?

Open your Bible to Genesis 1:5 and if it says "there was evening and there was morning: one indeterminate period of time" I will retract every statement I ever made on this board. Do you think that the people who undertake these translations are unqualified or filled with agenda? Why do you think they did not translate 'yom' as indefinite period of time? There is absolutely no scriptural precedence to do so framed in the context of an evening and morning. Like I've said before, a child can understand it. So who is stuffing more meaning than required into the text?

In earlier posts I mistakenly argued that belief in Genesis was a matter of faith. This left many to believe I was belittling their faith or taking a superior attitude So as you read my statements here, I ask you to consider the big picture from the framework of your worldview and not as a personal attack.

The issue is, do those who say they believe in God, actually believe God? It is not a matter of how much faith one has, nor how much intellectual curiosity one uses to find out 'how' God did something (another non-issue) but it boils down to whether God's followers actually believe the words spoken by Him. As I have already repeatedly said, origins theories all deny God and His words as given in the Bible, and christians who seek to reconcile these views, change the meanings to fit their own ideas or to be attractive to the secular world and gain acceptance of those who are not of Christ.

Many have forgotten the warnings of God, that man has been deceived and continues to be deceived and yet many still feel the need to cling to these deceived viewpoints and build a theology on them. God has never said to follow and listen to them, God has never said to apply their ways to His ways. Many christians do so, because they cannot believe what God has plainly declared because of secular evidence to the contrary.

For example from the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, by Rich Deem:

God is still on the surface of the earth. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Where is the light? It's on the surface of the earth for the first time. Where does the light come from. The text does not say directly, but it gives a lot of clues. Did God create the light? No! If God had created the light, the text would have said so,

Doesn't the text of the Bible clearly say God created all things? If one were to claim God did not do what God says He did, would He not be calling God a liar? If the believer does not believe God's words, then how do they expect a sinner to change their ways and believe in them? One cannot say they believe in God yet deny the what he says is true.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

More examples can be cited, but one is enough to make the point.

Christians who truly believe in God and who want to make an impact for God (that is really what I want to do) must not only believe in Him but must believe in His words as well without changing them to suit their insecurities or try to compromise with atheistic points of view.

From the International Standard Bible Dictionary:

DAY AND NIGHT

"Day," yom; ordinarily, the Hebrew "day" lasted from dawn to the coming forth of the starts (Nehemiah 4:21). The context usually makes it clear whether the term "day" refers to the period of twenty-four hours or to daytime; when there was a possibility of confusion, the term laylah, "night," was added (Genesis 7:4,12; 31:39). The "day" is reckoned from evening to evening, in accordance with the order noted in the account of Creation, namely, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5); Leviticus 23:32 and Daniel 8:14 reflect the same mode of reckoning the day. The phrase `erebh boker, "evening-morning," used in this last passage, is simply a variation of yom and laylah, "day" and "night"; it is the equivalent of the Greek nuchthemeron (2 Corinthians 11:25). That the custom of reckoning the day as beginning in the evening and lasting until the following evening was probably of late origin is shown by the phrase "tarry all night" (Judges 19:6-9); the context shows that the day is regarded as beginning in the morning; in the evening the day "declined," and until the new day (morning) arrived it was necessary to "tarry all night" (compare also Numbers 11:32).

The transition of day to night begins before sunset and lasts till after sunset; the change of night to day begins before sunrise and continues until after sunrise. In both cases, neither `erebh, "evening," nor boqer, "morning," indicate an exact space of time (compare Genesis 8:11; Exodus 10:13; Deuteronomy 16:6).

The term nesheph, is used for both evening twilight and morning dawn (compare 1 Samuel 30:17; 2 Kings 7:5,7; Job 7:4). Since there were no definite measurements of the time of day, the various periods were indicated by the natural changes of the day; thus "midday" was the time of the day when the sun mounted its highest (cohorayim); afternoon was that part of the day when the sun declined ( neToth ha-yom); and evening was the time of the going down of the sun (`erebh). "Between the evenings" (ben ha-`arbayim) was the interval between sunset and darkness. The day was not divided into hours until a late period. [~sha`ah = Aramaic] (Daniel 3:6), is common in Syriac and in later Hebrew; it denoted, originally, any short space of time, and only later came to be equivalent to our "hour" (Driver). The threefold division of the day into watches continued into post-exilic Roman times; but the Roman method of four divisions was also known (Mark 13:35), where all four divisions are referred to:

"at even" (opse), "midnight" (mesonuktion), "at **** crowing" (alektorophonia), "in the morning" (proi). These last extended from six to six o'clock (of also Matthew 14:25; Mark 13:35). Acts 12:4 speaks of four parties of four Roman soldiers (quaternions), each of whom had to keep guard during one watch of the night. In Berakhoth 3b, Rabbi Nathan (2nd century) knows of only three night-watches; but the patriarch, Rabbi Judah, knows four.


keil & delitzsch

Natural research, again, will never explain the origin of the universe, or
even of the earth; for the creation lies beyond the limits of the territory
within its reach.


“Thus evening was and morning was one day." אחד (one), like εἷς and
unus, is used at the commencement of a numerical series for the ordinal
17
primus (cf. Genesis 2:11; 4:19; 8:5,15). Like the numbers of the days
which follow, it is without the article, to show that the different days arose
from the constant recurrence of evening and morning. It is not till the sixth
and last day that the article is employed (v. 31), to indicate the termination
of the work of creation upon that day.

It was not till after the light had been created, and the separation of the
light from the darkness had taken place, that evening came, and after the
evening the morning; and this coming of evening (lit., the obscure) and
morning (the breaking) formed one, or the first day. It follows from this,
that the days of creation are not reckoned from evening to evening, but
from morning to morning. The first day does not fully terminate till the
light returns after the darkness of night; it is not till the break of the new
morning that the first interchange of light and darkness is completed, and a
heemeronu'ktion has passed. The rendering, “out of evening and morning
there came one day,” is at variance with grammar, as well as with the
actual fact. With grammar, because such a thought would require
'echaad אחד ליום; and with fact, because the time from evening to morning does not
constitute a day, but the close of a day.
The first day commenced at the moment when God caused the light to
break forth from the darkness; but this light did not become a day, until the
evening had come, and the darkness which set in with the evening had
given place the next morning to the break of day. Again, neither the words
ערב ויהי בקר ויהי, nor the expression בקר ערב, evening-morning (=
day), in Dan 8:14, corresponds to the Greek nucqh>meron, for morning is
not equivalent to day, nor evening to night. The reckoning of days from
evening to evening in the Mosaic law (Leviticus 23:32), and by many
ancient tribes (the pre-Mohammedan Arabs, the Athenians, Gauls, and
Germans), arose not from the days of creation, but from the custom of
regulating seasons by the changes of the moon. But if the days of creation
are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must
18
be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, of years or
thousands of years, but as simple earthly days.
It is true the morning and evening of the first three days were not produced
by the rising and setting of the sun, since the sun was not yet created; but
the constantly recurring interchange of light and darkness, which produced
day and night upon the earth, cannot for a moment be understood as
denoting that the light called forth from the darkness of chaos returned to
that darkness again, and thus periodically burst forth and disappeared. The
only way in which we can represent it to ourselves, is by supposing that the
light called forth by the creative mandate, “Let there be,” was separated
from the dark mass of the earth, and concentrated outside or above the
globe, so that the interchange of light and darkness took place as soon as
the dark chaotic mass began to rotate, and to assume in the process of
creation the form of a spherical body. The time occupied in the first
rotations of the earth upon its axis cannot, indeed, be measured by our
hour-glass; but even if they were slower at first, and did not attain their
present velocity till the completion of our solar system, this would make no
essential difference between the first three days and the last three, which
were regulated by the rising and setting of the sun.f3

From a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

(Disclaimer: Professor Barr, does not neccessarily believe, himself, that the Genesis is literally true.)

Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

Forum Monk,

You've managed to find perhaps the one quote that frosts me more than most. I don't know if you found it at AIG (Answers in Genesis) but that's usually where it comes from.

As you note, Barr is not a YEC proponent himself.

It's simply not true that there are not capable and qualified OEC proponents in major universities. It's a grossly overstated and hearsay type appeal to authority that doesn't add much to the discussion other than to appeal to people who don't know any better to accept this at face value and encourage them to close the issue in their minds without addressing the elements of the issue.

Here's a link to a list of OEC Proponents (or who at least affirm its possibility within the context of Biblical Literalism) at Reasons to Believe that is certainly not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ndex.shtml

I'll address more later, but I couldn't let that pass unchallenged.

Blessings,

Bart

Here's a question for those arguing 'Yom' in Gen 1 & 2 can only mean a 24 hour day.

Assume for the sake of argument that Moses and God intended to mean periods of time rather than 24 hour days.

Assume for the sake of argument that the formula day and evening phrasing found there has to include some meaning in days 1 - 3 different from our days and evenings in view of the lack of a sun.

What word or words would be used here instead of Yom or what difference in it's use would there be to communicate the concept of longer period of time?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Here's a question for those arguing 'Yom' in Gen 1 & 2 can only mean a 24 hour day.

Assume for the sake of argument that Moses and God intended to mean periods of time rather than 24 hour days.

Assume for the sake of argument that the formula day and evening phrasing found there has to include some meaning in days 1 - 3 different from our days and evenings in view of the lack of a sun.

What word or words would be used here instead of Yom or what difference in it's use would there be to communicate the concept of longer period of time?

A strawman argument in my opinon as yom has more than one meaning. However it's usage in Genesis is clear. I'm sure that you and the others who reject a literal Genesis day are aware of the link. Finally, the connection between the 7 day week that is observed and the Creation narrative are obvious in my opinion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=hom ... rd_any=yom

hfd wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Here's a question for those arguing 'Yom' in Gen 1 & 2 can only mean a 24 hour day.

Assume for the sake of argument that Moses and God intended to mean periods of time rather than 24 hour days.

Assume for the sake of argument that the formula day and evening phrasing found there has to include some meaning in days 1 - 3 different from our days and evenings in view of the lack of a sun.

What word or words would be used here instead of Yom or what difference in it's use would there be to communicate the concept of longer period of time?

A strawman argument in my opinon as yom has more than one meaning. However it's usage in Genesis is clear. I'm sure that you and the others who reject a literal Genesis day are aware of the link. Finally, the connection between the 7 day week that is observed and the Creation narrative are obvious in my opinion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=hom ... rd_any=yom

It's not a strawman argument. The point is, yom has more than one meaning and that meaning is dependent upon context.

By your answer, despite your protestations, you concede the point.

The "literal" meaning is not necessarily the "simplest" meaning. The literal meaning is the meaning intended by the human writer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a good indicator of this is the meaning understood and received by the original audience.

Therefore the answer is, were the intent of God and Moses to communicate or include the meaning of a period of time longer than one day the word that would be used is 'yom.'

Would you please focus on that point and either concede or refute it?

"It's not a strawman argument. The point is, yom has more than one meaning and that meaning is dependent upon context.

By your answer, despite your protestations, you concede the point. "

I don't believe you can find where I've said that 'yom' cannot have more than one meaning. It's obvious to me, and many others, that the meaning in Genesis is a literal day. Those who opt for another meaning do so for reasons that nly they can explain.

"The "literal" meaning is not necessarily the "simplest" meaning. The literal meaning is the meaning intended by the human writer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a good indicator of this is the meaning understood and received by the original audience.

Therefore the answer is, were the intent of God and Moses to communicate or include the meaning of a period of time longer than one day the word that would be used is 'yom.'

Would you please focus on that point and either concede or refute it?"

If the intent of God and Moses were to imply long periods I think they could have done a better job of it. I have focused, you just don't agree with me and those who see nothing but a literal day in Genesis. The explanations, which you evidently reject, are found in the link I provided.

This is not an issue of whether or not the Bible is consistent with accepted science. This is an issue of what is eing said in the Bible. It is incumbent on the reader to accept the narrative or to reject it. The meaning is clear.