Body: | The Days of Genesis are to be taken literal!
Click to View
THE DAYS OF GENESIS
by Shane Scott, former Faculty of Florida College
Note: This is false material we have supplied to document what Mr. Scott teaches. All this material, including Mr. Scott's "objections answered", are refuted by Dr. Patton's outline above.
The Bible, which is the inerrant word of God, teaches that God created the
universe from nothing. Contrary to naturalistic evolution, it teaches that
different kinds of animals were created distinctly. Contrary to theistic
evolution, it teaches that man was created separately from all animals, and
made in God's image.
But over what kind of time frame did God create our universe? Some Bible
believers insist that the world must be only 6,000 years old, because the
world was created in six days, according to Genesis 1. In this article I
will argue that the Bible allows for a much older earth, because the days
of Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally.
THE DAYS CANNOT BE LITERAL.
The "days" of creation in Genesis 1 cannot be literal because of the
parallel account of creation in Genesis 2. After God put man in the Garden,
He paraded the animals before Adam, who "gave names to all the
cattle...birds...and to every beast of the field" (2:20). Adam, however,
had no helper, and God created Eve for him. Some amount of time must have
passed between Adam's creation, the naming of the animals, and then Eve's
creation. But if the days of Genesis 1 are interpreted literally, all of
these events must have occured in one 24 hour day, because on the sixth day
"God created man...male and female He created them" (1:27). Because of all
the things that sixth day as described in Genesis 2, the sixth day of
Genesis 1 cannot be literal.
THE DAYS MUST BE AGES
To prove that the days are ages, consider the seventh day. All the other
days of creation ended with the phrase, "and there was evening and there
was morning, a xth day." I understand that phrase to mean that each of
those days had a distinct conclusion. However, there is no such statement
for the seventh day, which must mean that it has not ended. In other words,
on the seventh day God ceased creating new life forms, and that day has
continued until now because He still "rests" from creating new life.
This interpretation is supported by two NT texts. Hebrews 4:1-9 teaches
that God's sabbath rest remains for us to enter. And in John 5:16-18, Jesus
justified healing on the Sabbath because "My Father is working until now,
and I Myself am working." Jesus' point is that He can still do some things
even though He is observing the Sabbath, because God the Father can still
work (through providence) even though He is still observing His Sabbath
(rest from creating new life). The seventh day of the creation week in
Genesis began at the creation of Adam and Eve, and has continued since that
time. Thus, this seventh day is an age of thousands of years, and therefore
justifies interpreting the other days as ages.
ANTICIPATING SOME OBJECTIONS
(1) But doesn't "day" always refer to a 24 hour day? Normally, yom does
refer to literal days, but in the context of creation yom is used in three
different ways: day as opposed to night (1:16), 24 hour days (1:14), and
the entire period of creation (2:4).
(2) But what about the Sabbath command in Exodus 20? Exodus 20:9-11 does
base the Sabbath command on the creation week, and clearly that command was
applied to literal days of the week. However, the emphasis of the Sabbath
is not on 24 hour days, but on the number SEVEN. After all, the Sabbath
principle applied to years (Leviticus 25:4-5), and the jubilee, every
seventh sabbath year (Leviticus 25:8-55). In Exodus 20, the seventh day of
our week is paralleled to the seventh day of God's creation week, which we
proved earlier is an age of many years.
(3) If the days are ages, how could the universe have existed for three
prior ages before the sun was created on the fourth age? Actually, the sun
was already in existence after the first day, because the phrase "God
created the heavens and the earth" (1:1) refers to the entire universe.
What happened on the fourth day was that the sun, moon, and stars became
visible to the earth's surface for the purpose explicitly given in
1:14--"to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and
for seasons, and for days and years." This interpretation is supported by
several OT scholars, including Gleason Archer (A SURVEY OF OT
INTRODUCTION).
(4) But doesn't this interpretation open the door for evolution? In my
opinion, the older the earth is understood to be, the more glaring the
problems are with evolution. To illustrate, one of the problems with
evolution is that there are no transitional fossils which prove that one
kind of animal became another. Let's grant that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old. In 4.5 billion years not a single fossil has been found which
supports the transitional forms we should expect to find if evolution was
true. In reality, even if our universe is 15 billion years old, as
astronomers suggest, that still is not enough time for the random formation
of the chemicals needed for human life.
The days of Genesis 1 may be interpreted literally, but that is not the
best biblical interpretation. Further, we must refrain from assigning
specific dates to creation (such as 6,000 years) when the Bibles does not
demand such. The length of time God chose to create the world is
immaterial, since He is eternal. As Moses wrote in Psalm 90:4, "For a
thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by."
Shane Scott
Former Faculty of Florida College
Click to View Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|