The Days of Creation

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:25 pm

I'm sure you know that we covered this about a year ago but my wife, my son and I just returned from visiting the Ark Encounter, the life-size replica of Noah's ark that Ken Ham built. Ken Ham has some excellent points concerning the days of creation, showing that they were 24 hour time periods or ordinary days as we know them today. So I thought I would share some of these, many of which I had not heard before.

A respected Hebrew dictionary, the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon says that the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 means an ordinary day.

Every time the word "yom" is used with a number, or with the phrase "evening and morning", anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day.

If we can arbitrarily assign a different meaning to "yom", such as millions or thousands of years, why don't we do that with the word "day" in the New Testament? Was Jesus in the grave 3 days or millions of years? The same question applies to the Old Testament, why don't we assign a different meaning to the word "yom" in the book of Genesis, for example. Of course I know it can have different meanings, depending on the context, but in Genesis 1, the context (evening and morning, the first day, etc.) clearly identifies an ordinary day.

Those who do not accept that it was 6 24-hour days almost always do so because of information that is extra-Biblical, a source that is not God's word. Usually it is Darwin or his ilk or devotees, who wish to preach evolution.

Exodus 20:8-11 makes it clear that the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest correspond directly to the 6 days of work that man is to do and the 7th day is to rest. In fact God could have made everything in mere seconds if He had wanted to, but instead He chose to create everything in 6 days and then rest on the 7th. Why did He do that? Clearly here is where God instituted the 7-day week, giving us that standard that we still abide by today. A week is 7 days. Seven days make a week.

Did Jesus ever say that everything was created in 6 ordinary days? Well, isn't Jesus the 2nd person of the Godhead, i.e. isn't He God?
Then whenever God said something in the Old Testament, wasn't Jesus speaking also? In fact, Jesus was and is The Creator. John 1:3 says: "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." So, yes, Jesus did say that everything was created in 6 ordinary days. The previous passage, Exodus 20:8-ll clearly shows that.

Jesus said "But from the beginning of creation 'God made them male and female'". Mark 10:6 So Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning", not billions of years after the universe and the earth came into existence.

In Luke 13:14, a synagogue official must have been referring to Exodus 20:8-11 when he told the people to come during the 6 days when men ought to work and not on the Sabbath. Obviously the Jews knew the length of the creation week, which was the same as their week.

That's plenty for now. By the way, the life-size replica of the ark was quite amazing. If you get the chance, it is about 30 minutes south of Cincinnati in Williamstown, Kentucky, and well worth seeing.

steve7150
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by steve7150 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:32 pm

Those who do not accept that it was 6 24-hour days almost always do so because of information that is extra-Biblical, a source that is not God's word. Usually it is Darwin or his ilk or devotees, who wish to preach evolution.









That's not true, plenty of Christians believe in an old earth. I'm not sure myself as we do have scientific tests now which indicate the universe to be 16 billion or so years old. I'm not ready to dismiss it because it's extra biblical since "yom" is not clearly 24 hours and actually means an undefined period of time. On the other hand the plain reading of the text sounds like 24 hour days but the Sabbath command could have pertained to 24 hr days because "man days" were 24 hrs, it doesn't automatically translate to God creation days being 24 hours IMHO.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:54 pm

As I said, those "scientific tests" which indicate the universe is billions of years old are extra-Biblical. The Bible does not err scientifically but man does. Those "tests" cannot be trusted because they do not agree with God's word. The Bible can be trusted.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:37 pm

I'm sure those "tests" were conducted by those who already believe evolution is true. Yes, I already believe the Bible is true, so if evolution and the Bible do not agree, which they don't, they I will go with the Bible.

James Barr of Oxford University, one of the best Hebraists in the world wrote in 1994 that he knew of no professor of Hebrew or the Old Testament from any world-class university who did not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers that (a) creation took place in six 24-hour days and (b) the figures contained in the genealogies in Genesis provide by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world to later stages in the biblical story.

Hugh Williamson was the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford in 2014 (he may still be, I don't know). Oxford is perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, and Williamson is one of the top Hebraists anywhere. He said that he was sure that Professor Barr was correct concerning the days of Genesis 1. Williamson said, "I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this unless they were already committed to some alternative by other considerations that do not arise from a straightforward reading of the Hebrew text as it stands.

Gotta run!

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by Homer » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:38 pm

Hi Dwight,

I couldn't help but notice the opening sentence in your first post:
I'm sure you know that we covered this about a year ago but my wife, my son and I just returned from visiting the Ark Encounter, the life-size replica of Noah's ark that Ken Ham built.
While you argue for a literal understanding of yom in the creation account in Genesis, did you mean that Ham literally built that huge replica of the ark all by himself? Wouldn't that be a straightforward reading of your English?

While I do agree that scientists are often proven wrong (it is seen perhaps more plainly and often in the medical field) and I have much sympathy for your position, I think we have to be fair. And as John Lennox (also at Oxford and having three doctorates) says, he sees yom used in three different ways in the creation account.

I will say if there was no first Adam it casts serious doubt on there being a second. And that is a hill to die on, not a literal six 24 hour days of creation. And I am definitely not saying the six literal day understanding is false, just that there is room in the Christian religion for various understandings of how God (through Christ) brought it all about.

As Paul said in Romans, if we just look about ourselves the idea that all we see just came about by chance strikes me as unbelievable. Absurd, actually.

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:09 pm

Homer wrote:
While I do agree that scientists are often proven wrong (it is seen perhaps more plainly and often in the medical field) and I have much sympathy for your position, I think we have to be fair. And as John Lennox (also at Oxford and having three doctorates) says, he sees yom used in three different ways in the creation account.

Dwight speaking: So do I, but each of the 3 ways are obvious by the context. I never meant to imply that this is not true. If fact, I mentioned that there are different meanings but that there is only one meaning for the creation days - i.e. 24-hour ordinary days.


I will say if there was no first Adam it casts serious doubt on there being a second. And that is a hill to die on, not a literal six 24 hour days of creation.

Dwight speaking: Jesus is called the last Adam and the second man. Good point. But I think the 6 24-hour days are also a hill to die on. Here's why. The Bible says death came through the sin of Adam and Eve. The wages of sin is death. Evolution says no, that death already existed for billions of years before man even came on the scene. So evolution basically rejects the fall of man into sin and the consequence of death. But if there was no fall, there would be no need for a Saviour. If that's not a hill to die on, I don't know what is.

And I am definitely not saying the six literal day understanding is false, just that there is room in the Christian religion for various understandings of how God (through Christ) brought it all about.

Dwight speaking: If those understandings don't line up with the truth of God's word, then there is absolutely no room for them.

As Paul said in Romans, if we just look about ourselves the idea that all we see just came about by chance strikes me as unbelievable. Absurd, actually.

TruthInLove
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:35 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by TruthInLove » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:23 am

dwight92070 wrote:The Bible says death came through the sin of Adam and Eve. The wages of sin is death. Evolution says no, that death already existed for billions of years before man even came on the scene. So evolution basically rejects the fall of man into sin and the consequence of death.
Just to balance comment here, neither belief in an Old Earth nor Evolution requires a rejection of the idea that the sin of man was responsible for death of humans or animals.

Death could have been a consequence of a yet future fall of man. Time was created by God, he exists outside of it. Arguably, He has at least some foreknowledge of what the future is. Because of this, cause does not necessary preceed effect with respect to God's actions.

Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. Thus, Christ's destiny was determined in anticipation of what man would do. Likewise, death in the animal kingdom may have been a result of God's anticipation of man's fall. God can and does set things in motion that result in blessings for us long before we ever do anything to request or deserve such blessings. Why can't He then bring about curses using the same criteria?

This is how William Dembski reconciles this apparent dilemma.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by backwoodsman » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:30 am

Just a little bit of research will eliminate the confusion caused by all the misinformation that gets spread around on this topic.
dwight92070 wrote:A respected Hebrew dictionary, the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon says that the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 means an ordinary day.
You must not have checked BDB to see if this is true, which is unfortunate because it's only part of BDB's definition, presented in a misleading way. One can't really put too much blame on folks who simply take the word of someone they trust, but prominent Christian leaders like Ken Ham should be held to a higher standard. Is that really how he represented BDB's definition? If so, then he's either an incompetent researcher or deliberately intending to mislead; doesn't really matter which, because either way he's a known unreliable source.

Here's what BDB actually says about 'yom':
http://biblehub.com/bdb/3117.htm
If we can arbitrarily assign a different meaning to "yom", such as millions or thousands of years, why don't we do that with the word "day" in the New Testament?
(1) There's nothing arbitrary about it; it's within the range of literal meanings of 'yom'.
(2) Because the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew, so doesn't use 'yom'.
Those who do not accept that it was 6 24-hour days almost always do so because of information that is extra-Biblical, a source that is not God's word. Usually it is Darwin or his ilk or devotees, who wish to preach evolution.
It would be best if, before making such statements, you familiarize yourself with what those of your brothers with whom you disagree actually believe, and why. There are many conservative Christians who are as anti-evolution as you are, and as determined as you are not to compromise Scripture, who don't accept the 6 24-hour day interpretation for reasons drawn partly from a number of different Scriptures.

There's a lot more I'd like to say about these and others of your points, but that'll have to wait because I'm out of time for the moment. In the meantime, I'll point you toward Hugh Ross's website for further research: http://www.reasons.org/

dwight92070
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:51 pm

backwoodsman wrote:Just a little bit of research will eliminate the confusion caused by all the misinformation that gets spread around on this topic.
dwight92070 wrote:A respected Hebrew dictionary, the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon says that the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 means an ordinary day.
You must not have checked BDB to see if this is true, which is unfortunate because it's only part of BDB's definition, presented in a misleading way. One can't really put too much blame on folks who simply take the word of someone they trust, but prominent Christian leaders like Ken Ham should be held to a higher standard. Is that really how he represented BDB's definition? If so, then he's either an incompetent researcher or deliberately intending to mislead; doesn't really matter which, because either way he's a known unreliable source.

Here's what BDB actually says about 'yom':
http://biblehub.com/bdb/3117.htm

Dwight speaking: Backwoodsman, you are right, I did not check the BDB lexicon and yes, I did take the word of Ken Ham, who, up to this point has proven trustworthy. Thanks for looking that up. I looked at every definition where Genesis 1 is referred to and there were only 2: 1. day as opposed to night and 2. day as defined as evening and morning. So, in fact, Ken Ham was correct again. Both of these definitions point to an ordinary day, just like Ken Ham said.
If we can arbitrarily assign a different meaning to "yom", such as millions or thousands of years, why don't we do that with the word "day" in the New Testament?
(1) There's nothing arbitrary about it; it's within the range of literal meanings of 'yom'.

Dwight speaking: Of course it is arbitrary, when you want to force a definition of yom from a different context into the context of Genesis 1 and 2. Even the scholars I mentioned above cried "foul" when anyone did that.

(2) Because the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew, so doesn't use 'yom'.

Dwight speaking: I'm not ignorant. I know that. But you could do the same thing with the Greek word for "day" and try to get people to believe that it really means billions of years, when in the context mentioned, i.e. Jesus being in the grave, "day" means 3 ordinary days. I know, nobody would do that, because it doesn't fit their agenda. But it certainly fits their agenda in Genesis 1.


Those who do not accept that it was 6 24-hour days almost always do so because of information that is extra-Biblical, a source that is not God's word. Usually it is Darwin or his ilk or devotees, who wish to preach evolution.
It would be best if, before making such statements, you familiarize yourself with what those of your brothers with whom you disagree actually believe, and why.

Dwight speaking: Okay, if you or others here disagree with my statement, then please state your Biblical source that disproves that the days of creation are ordinary 24-hour days. I don't believe you can, because I don't believe there are any. That was my point, rather it was Ken Ham's point and I trust him. Any so-called proof of days that are long periods of time are extra-Biblical.

There are many conservative Christians who are as anti-evolution as you are, and as determined as you are not to compromise Scripture, who don't accept the 6 24-hour day interpretation for reasons drawn partly from a number of different Scriptures.

Dwight speaking: Please, give us those scriptures.

There's a lot more I'd like to say about these and others of your points, but that'll have to wait because I'm out of time for the moment. In the meantime, I'll point you toward Hugh Ross's website for further research: http://www.reasons.org/
Dwight speaking: I'll look at that but I have heard from more than one Christian (yes, including Ken Ham) that Hugh Ross is quite wrong. In fact, I went to hear him speak here in Denver years ago. Trying to make sense of what he said was a challenge. He comes across as a man who is quite impressed with his own knowledge, often providing little scripture, but rather his opinions for proof.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: The Days of Creation

Post by Si » Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:29 pm

Since I started posting here, this is one topic that I have avoided. For whatever reason, it seems to draw out a lot of unfair generalizations, and an overall refusal by some to even attempt to understand alternative viewpoints.

For the record, I believe Genesis is God-Breathed scripture. I also think evolution and big bang cosmology are fine scientific theories and I see no reason to reject them. Human evolution has interested me especially. About 10 years ago I got my DNA tested and traced the branches back tens of thousands of years, and I have watched with awe as the human genome has been decoded (led by an evangelical Christian Francis Collins). Astronomy has also been a fascination and passion of mine. Just recently I watched a documentary about how matter formed in the very early stages after the Big Bang, and it seems to me to be a pure act of creation. I got goosebumps watching it. By the way, the theory was first proposed by a priest, Georges Lemaître.

The thing is, all of these things led me TO God, not away from him. Yes, I think God can work through evolutionary science and big bang cosmology to show that he is creator and that "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." I am not the only one that thinks this, more and more people every day, who grew up being taught evolution, are led to God through the fingerprints of the Creator that they see in his creation.

Young Earth Creationists like to compare the universe to a watch and proclaim the need for a watchmaker. It seems to me that Evolutionary Creationists in a sense believe God planted a seed and tended his creation as a caring gardener would his favorite tree, as it grew into galaxies and stars and planets and earth and eventually us. If you are going to allow for considerations of genre, literary style and history to render Revelation 20 as symbolic, to apply a consistent standard, you have to allow for the same to apply to Genesis 1. It is as simple as that.

We live in a very sick world and people need The Lord. And quite honestly, I feel that if Young Earth Creationism is made a litmus test of orthodoxy, people are going to be driven away, and that is tragic.

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”