There are four literal interpretations of YOM (the Hebrew word for day). The four definitions are (1) a portion of the daylight hours (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour day, and (4) a long but finite time period.[1] Unlike the modern Hebrew and English, biblical Hebrew had no other word for a finite era or epoch. The figure of speech of “a day is like a thousand years” in 2 Pt. isn’t an issue, it’s a simile; I don’t advocate that 2 Peter permits and old earth interpretation in Genesis. The four definitions of YOM are literal definitions; it’s unnecessary to say it’s non-literal. Also, the issue of a numerical adjective in front of YOM, there is no such rule or law in Hebrew grammar that necessitates that YOM following a numerical adjective must be the twenty-four-hour interpretation of YOM. The divisions of the days are “evening and morning” which signifies a division between the period of time (you’re going to have a hard time taking the text “literally” if you want to say there was evening and morning without a sun to make the distinguishing nature of evening and morning…).[2] Even YEC’s must concede that the first three days of evening and morning are not used in the sense of referring to solar rotations, merely a division of time). William Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies, explains that YOM is “frequently put for a time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration… Day [YOM] is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”[3] This is completely consistent with a kairological (differing from a chronological reading in that [Gr. kairos] it is a point of time specific to an event) reading of Genesis 1 as advocated by William Dembski in The End of Christianity.
Were the Days of Creation Long Periods of Time or 24 Hours?
Thoughts on Dembski’s The End of Christianity
The following is a review I did of Bill Dembski’s The End of Christianity a couple of years ago.
The book was a fairly light read, easy to get through, yet deep and informative at the same time. I would recommend this to those who are somewhat familiar with modern cosmology, geology, and theological exegesis. If you are an adamant young earth creationist you will either dislike this book or be engaged to find more answers (which ultimately he believes to be untenable). To state the theodicy in a nutshell, both natural and personal/moral evil is a result of the Fall and God acted in anticipatory manner, though retroactively, to show the gravity of sin. I appreciate Dembski’s attempts to reconcile evil with sin and to exalt God’s grace and glory in the midst of suffering and evil.
The Sixth Day of Creation Was Just Too Long to be 24 Hours
The young earth creationist interpretation is internally inconsistent; it just doesn’t make sense. Both earth and life exist before the sun, moon, and stars. This leaves a person to wonder where heat, light, gravity, and earth’s rotation and orbital features came from prior to the fourth creation day. Let’s look at the sixth day. How in the world did Adam do so much? Here’s a list of the events of day six:
- God creates the various living creatures along with wild animals and animals that become domesticated [nephesh/soulish creatures] (Genesis 1:24-25).
- God creates Adam in the divine image (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7).
- God gives Adam a mandate of dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28).
- God makes the plants available as a food source for man (Genesis 1:29-30).
- God plants a garden and puts the man in it (Genesis 2:8).
- God gives Adam instruction concerning obedience to God’s specific commands (Genesis 2:9, 16-17).
- God commissions Adam to cultivate the garden (Genesis 2:15).
- God commissions Adam to name or classify the animals (Genesis 2:19-20).
- God declares Adam’s need for a suitable helper (Gen. 2:18, 20).
- God induces sleep and performs surgery on Adam (Genesis 2:21).
- God creates Eve (Genesis 2:22).
- God ordains that Adam and Eve enter into a divinely constituted marriage relationship (Genesis 2:23-25).
read more »
Word of the Week Wednesday: Supralapsarianism
The Word of the Week is: Supralapsarianism
Definition: From the Latin, supra (prior to, below, before), lapsis, (fall). A term used to denote the logical moment of God’s election of the saints. Supralapsarianism if the belief that God chose the elect logically prior to the fall of man.
More about the term: Supralapsarianism is generally held by Calvinists and a few Molinists. Supralapsarianism places the moment of divine election logically prior to the fall of Adam as opposed to logically posterior to the fall, which is known as infralapsarianism. When God chose the elect he did so without viewing them or considering them in their fallen state. God chose them in a pre-fallen state. This position can create controversy and may have unsavory implications. One of the implications is what’s known as double-predestination. This is the idea that God chose the reprobates (the non-elect) in the same fashion in which he chose the elect. This isn’t a necessary implication of supralapsarianism since God’s decree of reprobation may be logically posterior to the fall.
This view of soteriology is held by Alvin Plantinga, who is a Molinist with Calvinistic tendencies (there’s a wide spectrum of Molinism ranging from supralapsarianism to Wesleyan). Plantinga uses this idea in his theodicy, ‘O Felix Culpa’ (O happy sin). The reason why evil exists is because God first desired the cross of Christ–the means by which God would get the most glory. In order to bring about the cross there must be sin, thus God permits sin to happen because he desires the cross (which is why evil exists–so God may be glorified by atoning for it).
Is There Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?
To answer the question, “Is it surprising that scientific evidence supports a young earth perspective?” I would respond saying that I would almost consider this a loaded question. I don’t think I can find no evidence for a young earth; however, I find the record of nature to support the proposition that the universe is old (billions of years) by overwhelming evidence. There is hardly any evidence for a young earth, if indeed there is any at all.
Before getting to the geologic record of nature one needs to address the cosmological record of nature (the earth cannot be older than the universe). I initially gained my interest in cosmology (and I must say I really enjoy discussing cosmology) was the Kalam cosmological argument, which is an apologetic argument for a beginning of the universe.[1] I’ll put aside the mathematical and philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe for that would be off topic and I’ll stick with the scientific evidence. If one were to analyze an extrapolation of space and time then that initial singularity for the universe would take us back 13.73 GYA (giga, billion years ago). There are many models of the universe such as the steady state, oscillating, quantum fluctuation, and other string theory models that coincide with former.[2] The most prominent model with the most philosophical, mathematical, and scientific evidence is the standard model (due to cosmic inflation, the big bang). Prominent cosmologist Paul Davies comments,