Actually, I am not insisting that they are completely wrong. I only maintain that the days of Genesis one refer to an extended period of time in this realm. One of the main thesis in my book about early Genesis is that Genesis chapter one describes creation occurring in two realms, the realm above and the realm below. The realm above exists in His will and responds to God's commands quickly, perfectly and without the need for His further intervention. In the realm below conforming to God's commands is a long drawn-out process with lots of errors and mis-steps and is not even possible without His intervention. In other words, it's a suitable place for flawed and sinful human beings like us. Time does not pass at the same rate in that realm. For all I know, maybe it all happened in what an observer up there would experience as six literal days. But that was there and no human observers were around anyway. We are here and here it took ages.
No one disputes that the word "yom" in the Old Testament can mean either a literal day, the hours of daylight only, or a long and indefinite period of time. The argument from the Young Earth camp is based on how the Hebrew word translated "day" is used elsewhere in scripture when paired with the Hebrew terms translated "evening" and "morning". Various YEC sources have made various claims about this relationship, some factual and some not.
For example one of the largest YEC outfits, Answers in Genesis, in this article makes the claim that "in over 100 instances where the phrase “evening and morning” accompany the word yom in the Old Testament (as it does in the days of Creation in Genesis), it always refers to an ordinary 24-hour day. " This is not true because there are not even close to 100 instances of the phrase "evening and morning" being paired with the word "yom" in scripture. We don't even have to quibble about whether the instances refer to an "ordinary 24-hour day" because the instances don't even exist! The phrase is found with "yom" in early Genesis, and the other claimed ninety-four instances are not to be found.
Even in the handful of cases where "yom" exists with just one of the terms the structure is different. In the first five days of Genesis chapter one, there are no articles or prepositions associated with the terms for "evening" and "morning" or the word "yom". It just says "(became or it came) Evening, (became or it came) Morning, a Day X". If I say "in the evening we called it a day" then I have referred to a specific evening by the use of the word "the". There is no definite article like that in Genesis chapter one, at least until the work wraps up on the sixth "day." Thus you can't validly argue that the usage is the same when the sentence structure associated with the term is different.
"Evening" in Genesis one is not associated with a specific evening because it does not say "the evening"on any of those first five days. Nor does it have other qualifiers or prepositions to modify what is meant by "evening" as passages outside of Genesis do. It is terrible scholarship to define the meaning of a term used without definite article and modifiers by seeing how it is used with them in other circumstances.
For example the phrase "Twilight for the Gods", the title of a movie made in the nineteen fifties, does not refer to a specific evening but rather a condition of increasing fading of power and respect that the 'gods' in question are experiencing. The campaign slogan "It's Morning in America" does not refer to a specific morning, but rather a time when things are improving and people are more optimistic. They don't refer to a literal day or dusk, even though both terms use that as imagery. In the same way the use of these terms in Genesis chapter one without the modifiers which tie them to a specific literal day should not be assumed to be literal. As with the movie title, "evening" can just as well be describing a condition rather than a literal time period. In this case a condition that some aspect of creation is subject to prior to God's Word intervening. Like the campaign slogan, "morning" could be referring to a condition rather than a specific literal morning- the result after God's Word orders some aspect of creation to His will.
Another source, "Creation Today" in an article by Ken Hovind, says "The words “morning” and “evening” occur together, without “day” 38 times outside Genesis 1. Each of these occurrences refers to a literal 24-hour day."
Well, he is a lot closer to right than the "Answers in Genesis" claim cited above, but I want to show you some of the "38 times" and you can see that just because a verse of scripture has the words for "evening", "morning" in it does not mean that it is referring only to a literal 24 hour day. In very few of those cases is the phrase "evening and morning" even used together in that order, and that is on top of the differences in definite articles, prepositions, and modifiers I mentioned previously. Because of all that it is not reasonable to give them too much weight in determining what the same words mean when used differently in Genesis chapter one. It is really misleading and over-simplistic scholarship even if the other uses of the terms really did refer to a "literal 24-hour day", but the fact is they don't.
Here is an example. In Exodus chapter eighteen the three words are used together twice as shown...
Exodus 18:13 -- And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.
Exodus 18:14 -- So when Moses' father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, "What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?
In Exodus 18 the phrase "morning until evening" refers to LESS than a 24 hour day- it is "from sunup to sundown". This is important to our discussion because Genesis chapter one says "evening and morning" and so if YEC reasoning applies it then it is literally describing a night rather than a day just as the terms in reverse order in these two verses are describing daytime and not a whole day. Thus the most "literal" view of the terms in Genesis chapter one don't make sense.
Another example actually used the words "evening" and "morning" in the right order.
Exodus 27:21 -- "In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD. It shall be a statute forever to their generations on behalf of the children of Israel.
Here the phrase means "perpetually" or "continually". It is not a 24-hour day- it is for all generations as long as there is a flame to keep burning. It's an indefinite period of time. The following verse in Leviticus is very similar....
Leviticus 24:3 -- "Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the tabernacle of meeting, Aaron shall be in charge of it from evening until morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a statute forever in your generations.
In Job the brief life of a man is compared to the time from morning to evening- so the words are used to describe a period of time that, though brief in the grand scheme of things, is far longer than a literal twenty-four hour day...
Job 4:20 -- "They are broken in pieces from morning till evening; They perish forever, with no one regarding."
Psalms 90:6 uses similar language to describe the brevity of the life of a plant. Daniel 8:26 is more controversial, but it does have the terms for "evening" and "morning" in it and it does refer to a period of more than one literal day.
Look, that is a valid scholarship tool when used properly, but here it is not being used properly. Part of the reason is that they are ignoring the other language elements of how the terms are used as I have shown. But it is also because this situation in Genesis chapter one- the foundation of creation- is a unique situation. It is not like those other situations so any allowable use of the words must be considered in order to discern context. Sticking with what the word means in the majority of uses will steer you wrong.
Imagine you had a document with many accounts in it. Some are from offices settings where the phrase "just a second" comes up. Another set of stories is from a track coach. One story is about a duel. You cannot determine how the word "second" is used in the last account by how it is used in the first two. You have to consider every allowable meaning and see what fits the rest of the circumstances- especially if somewhere else in the document there is a reference to the account of the duel.
The principle I am claiming here is that the context of words in a passage is better determined by what the rest of scripture says about that passage rather than how similar words are used in different passages. Take for example the account of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar. The way that words used in that account are used in passages about other subjects may offer us some value, but whatever value we get from that must be superseded by what Galatians Chapter four says about the passage. That is, we can't continue to insist that it is simply a story about a guy, his wife, and a concubine when Galatians tells us that its real meaning is much more than that.
Imagine you had a document with many accounts in it. Some are from offices settings where the phrase "just a second" comes up. Another set of stories is from a track coach. One story is about a duel. You cannot determine how the word "second" is used in the last account by how it is used in the first two. You have to consider every allowable meaning and see what fits the rest of the circumstances- especially if somewhere else in the document there is a reference to the account of the duel.
The principle I am claiming here is that the context of words in a passage is better determined by what the rest of scripture says about that passage rather than how similar words are used in different passages. Take for example the account of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar. The way that words used in that account are used in passages about other subjects may offer us some value, but whatever value we get from that must be superseded by what Galatians Chapter four says about the passage. That is, we can't continue to insist that it is simply a story about a guy, his wife, and a concubine when Galatians tells us that its real meaning is much more than that.
What the rest of scripture tells us about the account means more than how the same words in the account are used elsewhere. What the rest of scripture tells us about the days in Genesis chapter one must be considered more authoritative than a word count of how similar words are used in different passages which describe different situations using different sentence structure.
Now a Young Earth Creationist might be tempted to say "OK then, look at Exodus 20:11 and see what other passages say about Genesis chapter one." Well, they have that one wrong too. One reason has to do with what is said about the time "Before the First Day". Another reason, and this undermines their claim that "every instance of the word 'yom' when used with a number refers to a literal 24-hour day", is that the seventh day in Genesis chapter one (and thus Exodus 20:11) is not a literal 24-hour day according to the passages in the New Testament. This is shown in the chapter about "The Seventh Day."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.