Hi

We have discussed the issue of the creation on the Highway boards more than once over the years. Some of you are aware that I am an advocate of the 24 hour day view. One of the reasons for my belief in this view is how one supporter of the 24 hr. day view puts it.
(from
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/301 ) This of course is not the only reason for believing this view, but I believe it is a good one.
I also believe that the literal reading of the creation account is the most natural reading, because I don’t see any clues in the text that God meant it to be understood any other way.

So my starting this thread is not that I have changed my mind on the issue. Quite the contrary, I still believe it.
However, seeing how this particular understanding of the Hebrew word “Yom” in this context is even being challenged by some so called Reformed theologians.
I thought it might benefit me (and others) mainly because my knowledge is limited particularly on the meaning of Hebrew words, to give one opposing view of the Hebrew word “Yom” in context with the creation account.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf

Among the things that the article says is the following.


Also:

Tom

John Gerstner had a fascinating comment on this topic in his tape series on the Westminster Confession of Faith. He said something to the effect that in the 17th century, when the Westminster Confession of Faith was written, it was perfectly understandable for people of that time to believe in a young earth created in six 24-hour days. However, Gerstner could not imagine how any theologian in our time could possibly come to that conclusion, considering all the evidence for an ancient universe across so many disciplines of science.

The Roman Catholics were adamant to support geocentricity, in their interpretation of Scripture. Luther and Calvin also argued from Scripture that the earth must be the center of the universe (very good arguments at that). It’s strange that the geocentric/heliocentric debate rarely comes up, especially when compared with young earth/old earth debates (I just Googled “geocentric vs. heliocentric”, so I have to eat my words). Anyway, it appears that interpretations of Scripture concerning geocentricity have been adjusted in the last 400 years to conform to reality. I don’t think the intention of young earth proponents is to bring special revelation in conflict with natural revelation. Perhaps another 4 centuries are required to allow interpretations of Scripture to adjust to the reality of an old universe.

However, it becomes difficult at times to witness to Chinese (I work in China) because of the misguided enthusiasm young earth proponents have had on pitting Scripture against reality, and equating that with Christianity. If the young earth proponents are correct, I wish they would work harder to prove to critics (not the choir) that all of geology, astronomy, and science is misguided, and go the whole way back to geocentricty to show that Galileo has been playing tricks with his telescope all along.

Personally, I agree with Gerstner. I am not in the same class as Gerstner, and it’s a disgrace to even mention myself in the same sentence with such a great theologian. Anyone could refute my arguments, so ignore them. But, I would encourage you to at least consider Gerstner’s viewpoint.

Alan

Alan,

I have to admit that I was very much an admirer of John H. Gerstner when he was alive. My opinion of him won't be diminished however, if it is true that he didn't hold to a traditional 24 hr/6 day creation view, since I don't idolize the man. There have been other notable men who didn't hold to the traditional view, e.g., B.B. Warfield, E.J. Young, et al. But since they are fallen in Adam just like all other men, then were/are prone to errors, even errors in biblical interpretation and application.

Personally, I hold firmly to the traditional view and believe that the Westminster Confession is an accurate and therefore reliable statement of what Scripture teaches concerning God's fiat creation of the world. There are just too many instances where non-traditional 'theories' contradict Scripture, e.g., the Sabbath passages.

For an excellent article regarding the Bible and Science, see here: The Word of God and Science.

For a short but succinct defense of the traditional view, see here: Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation.

Alan

You said:

Like Pilgrim I have a lot of respect for Gerstner; however it seems to me that this understanding, at least from what it seems to be saying here; takes outside sources such as so called evidence for an ancient universe to interpret Scripture.
It makes it sound like Gerstner believes that it is ok to use science (or other outside sources) to interpret Scripture.
I believe this is a very dangerous practice and doubt that Gerstner came to believe in the doctrines of grace by the same method.

I might add that this so called evidence for an ancient universe across so many disciplines of science. Is not so cut and dried as you seem to believe. There are many scientists that believe in a young earth.
Many of them have said things like all scientists deal with the same facts, however not all scientists agree with where those facts lead. This is because the facts to date can only take us so far and where those facts end our presuppositions kick in.
Honest scientists (both Old and Young Earthers) will tell you that where scientific facts end we must develop logical theories in order to reach our presuppositions.
The problem is, many (on both sides) talk about these “theories” as though they are facts.

But I have digressed from my original intention of starting this thread.
Which is, from the context of the creation story in Genesis chapter one; what is the author’s intent for using the Hebrew word “Yom”?
As someone who does not know Hebrew and is limited in my understanding of Hebrew words and their context; to a certain extent I find myself, having to rely on theologians who have more knowledge than me.
However, this is quite confusing when theologians sharing (for the most part) the same theological tradition; disagree on the same points.

From my studies on the topic, my understanding says that throughout the OT whenever the word “Yom” is used with a numeral, it mean a 24 hour period of time.
Many such as the author in the link I provided say this isn’t true.
That particular critique challenged John MacArthur’s exegesis of the word “Yom”.
For example the article says that seeing a definate article is not used in the context of the original Hebrew writing, it doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour period (see article for clarification).
I am not sure exactly what he means by this.

Is there a way to find out for sure who is correct?

Tom

Pilgrim

I just finished reading one of the links you provided. It was ‘The Word of God and Science’, by John De Vries

Thank you, De Vries was very honest and transparent in what he had to say.
I especially liked the following quote.


I look forward to reading the other article you provided.

Tom

Alan

Earlier I responded to your post about the late John Gerstner’s beliefs on the issue.

You might be aware that John Gerstner is a mentor of RC Sproul and according to Sproul was in his opinion the best in the field of apologetics.
I thought because of this it might be interesting to get RC Sproul’s take on this particular issue.
http://creation.com/famous-evangelical-apologist-changes-his-mind-rc-sproul

Here is one quote by RC Sproul from the link above.



Tom

Tom,

There are many ways to show the error of the "Framework Theory" and those like it, e.g., that which Poythress espouses but putting it to the test; a basic approach to those who hold to a presuppositional apologetic defense of the faith.

Here's just one way which I find very effective. Let's look at a portion of Scripture which I have previously mentioned, Exodus 20:8-11


Now, let's substitute the word "day" yom with the word "era" which those who reject the word "day" to mean a 24-hour period of time. This is how the Fourth Commandment would read and thus allegedly be understood by the Israelites:


Among the several problems which can now be clearly seen, the most blatant is that one is not to do any work, nor are any of the man's family, not his servants nor his servants nor even a visitor in his house for the entire era. Now, if this "era" is to be understood to be a period of time consisting of several million years or even 100,000 years, then this poses an insurmountable problem.

Are we to seriously believe that the Israelites understood "day" to actually be "era"? Then if so, why did they violate this commandment during their entire history? And more so, assuming that this commandment is applicable today, which I do of course, then are we to abstain from all manner of work until....?????????? perhaps Christ returns?

OR, are we to arbitrarily change the meaning of "day" in Exodus 20 to mean a 24-hour period of time? If so, by what warrant are we to understand that Moses used "day" in these two places differently?

Personally, I find it much easier to explain that the "day" in Genesis 1 & 2 and also in Exodus 20 are 24-hour periods and that God created a mature earth upon which man to dwell.

Pilgrim

Great stuff, put that way, it doesn't make any sense to believe anything but a 24 hour day.

It would be interesting to see Alan, or someone else who doesn't hold to the 24 hour model respond to that.


Tom

Pilgrim

I am a little curious if you have used this argument either on the Highway, or somewhere else?
If so, can you give any responses that it garnered?

Tom

Yes, I've used this particular biblical argument before. Perhaps here but many times elsewhere over the years. I can't say what responses I received since I can't remember. But regardless of the responses, it's a solid and biblical reason to accept and believe that the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 teaches that God created all that we read there in the span of 6 24-hour days. I have to believe that's how Moses' hearers understood it to be; how the overwhelming majority of people who read the Bible understand it to be; how the vast majority of scholars understand it to be. It may sound rather nebulous, but when I personally read the account, the "spirit of the text" just screams out that the days are 24-hour days, the days I experience in my life from morning to evening.

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

This passage was used by Martin Luther to justify a geocentric model of the universe. I have no doubt that anyone who took Luther to task on the issue of a heliocentricity would reduced to oblivion, due to the apparently clear teaching of the text, and Luther’s uncanny skills of debate. However, what would have been considered hermeneutical gymnastics in Luther’s day is today regarded as phenomenological language.

When John Calvin commented on this passage, it appears that he accepted the notion of geocentricity, but he focused primarily on the theological implications, such as the need to pray to God, and that it was God acting in this situation, not Joshua.

Ex 20:8-11 clearly shows the theological implications of creation: that we are to work six days and then keep one day holy to God. I find it curious that the focus today, and in this discussion, is on the scientific rather than the theological implications. I am so fascinated by the comparison of the account of creation in Gen 1 to Christ, given in John 1. Anyway, throwing all theological implications aside, we should return to discussions of the science.

First, I should say that I hold the Holy Scripture in highest regard. I believe it is inerrant and infallible, the very Word of God. I also believe that God is omnipotent, ubiquitous, omniscient, and most Holy. God did not require 18 billion years, or six days, or even 10 seconds to create the universe. God could have created the entire universe with a single thought just 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age, giving us memories. If God created the universe with the appearance of age, making it appear 18 billion years old, then no matter how intelligent and scientific we think we are, it would be impossible for us to find cracks and defects in God’s design allowing us to determine the actual age, rather than apparent age. In other words, if God created the earth a few thousand years ago in six days with the appearance of an age of billions of years, then no matter how many sophisticated scientific instruments we construct, and no matter how much data we collect, we could never come to any different conclusion other than the universe appears billions of years from every angle and perspective.

It’s possible that God moves the sun and planets around the earth, giving the appearance from every perspective that the earth and planets move about the sun. It’s possible that God created the universe a few thousand years ago, giving the appearance from every possible measurement and observation that the universe is billions of years old. However, I don’t believe that God works this way. I don’t believe that the Scriptures teach the sun moves about the earth, and I don’t believe that the Bible teaches the earth was created in 6 days just a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age. People have incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures in these ways, but their adamant interpretations change over the centuries to conform to reality. The same is true of science. People have incorrectly interpreted data from observations and measurements, but their interpretations change over time to conform to a closer and more accurate perception of reality. There are two problems: man can err when interpreting scientific data, and man can err when interpreting Scripture. Not all things in Scripture are equally clear, and the same goes for science.

Here are some problems I see with common interpretations I encounter of the Genesis account of creation. First, Genesis opens by saying that God created the heavens and the earth. Then it says the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. What does this mean? At this point, it seems we have a heaven, with stars, galaxies, sun, and planets, and one of these planets is earth. The earth at this point is just a large deep ocean with perhaps a solid core and an opaque atmosphere. It doesn’t say here that there is no light anywhere in the universe, it just says that there is no light on the surface of the oceans covering the earth, suggesting an opaque atmosphere.

Next God says, “Let there be light.” It does not say that God created light at this moment, although many jump to this conclusion. Light could have already existed for billions of years throughout the heavens. It’s possible that it is talking about the atmosphere becoming translucent so that light now is able to reach the surface of the earth for the first time. According to the second verse, the frame of reference is now at the surface of the earth, where the Spirit of God is hovering. This is when light came into the world, a symbol of Christ, the true light that came into the world.

Then, God called the light day and the dark night. This appears to teach that there is already a sun, and the earth is already spinning, but this is the first time that light is able to reach the surface for day and night to be distinguished.

This is followed by an interesting phrase, “and then there was evening and there was morning.” How is this to be interpreted, since this phrase is not found anywhere else in Scripture? Is it a poetic refrain repeated after each day? Does it indicate how Yom (12-hour day, 24-hour day, or era), is to be interpreted?

What happens the second day? Is this the creation of Heaven? Or, is the earth now covered by a blanket of clouds with some sky underneath, and this all on top of the ocean?

How about the third day? Is this the day that the earth was created? Or, did the earth already exist before this? It seems that land that was originally at the bottom of the ocean comes up out of the ocean, forming continents with oceans and seas.

Now about the fourth day, is this when the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies were created, or is this when the atmosphere becomes transparent so that the lights from these objects can be seen clearly for the first time on the surface of the earth? If the earth already existed before day three and even before day one, is it possible the heavens with sun, moon, and stars already existed before day four, as stated in verse one?

As we continue, the fifth day begins and ends, the sixth day begins and ends, but what about the seventh day? Is there a verse that says, “and then there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day”? Is it possible that the seventh day hasn’t ended? God is apparently not creating anything new in our present time. There are indications of star formation, but nothing ex-nihilo. We see species going extinct, but I don’t hear anyone saying, “Don’t worry about extinction of the whales, they will evolve again.”

So, I hope you can see that I have concerns about interpretations that insist on a six 24-hour day creation of the universe just a few thousand years ago. I can guarantee that I would have had no chance debating Luther on geocentricity 450 years ago, and I don’t expect this debate over the age of the earth to be resolved for many centuries to come. I would just suggest that you be very sure of your position before telling people they must deny reality to become Christian. I also resolve to work hard to be very sure of my position, that I don’t encourage people to misinterpret Scripture due to errors in scientific theories. Thanks for pointing out resources, which I will continue to investigate in hopes that my errors, which I am sure are many, can be resolved.

Alan

Alan

I will let Pilgrim answer, if he so chooses. However, I want to comment on the following.



Deny reality, in order to become a Christian? Give me a break.
It is the Scriptures that determine reality. I have yet to see an exegesis of the creation story in Genesis, other than the 24 hour day model that doesn't rely on outside sources to interpret Scripture.
Scripture must interpret Scripture, not outside sources.

If you are thinking that we are trying to say that unless one believes in the 24 hour day model, then they are not Christians. I want to assure you, to my knowledge nobody is saying that. There have been and are fine Christians (i.e. Benjamin Warfield, John Gersner) who didn't hold to the 24 hour model.
However, I believe they are inconsistent in their hermeneutics when it comes to this matter.

Tom

There is a vast difference between reading the Joshua passage and then formulating a geocentric model and reading the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, which are propositional statements and simply embracing them as being true. There is no "hermeneutical gymnastics" needed to understand Genesis 1 & 2. It is plain enough on its face.

Secondly, there is the matter of which hermeneutical principle one is going to adhere to. Historically, and I do believe it is the biblical principle, the Church has concluded from the study of Scripture that the Bible's own hermeneutic is the "grammatico-historico" principle. 1) There is no reason to question that the Genesis account was written as history; propositional statements concerning how God created the heavens and earth. 2) There is great weight to show that the hearers/readers of what God through Moses revealed about the creation of all things was understood to be 6 24-hour days. References to this event are found throughout Scripture upon which other truths, laws, etc., are established which can only be understood if the "days" are 24-hour days.


I cannot agree that Exodus 20:8-11 simply focuses upon "the theological implications" of creation, although there is much to be learned about the nature and work of God in it. The CONTEXT is primarily prescriptive, i.e., that which God commands all men to do. As I have written elsewhere in this thread, IF for the sake of argument, "day" is to be understood as "era" (perhaps millions of years), it becomes an irrational command for man to work six "eras" (perhaps millions of years) and then rest for an "era" and within it doing no work.


Correct. But more on this below.


Here I think Tom was correct in responding as he did, although I think he missed something and apparently thinks that men like yourself think that those of us who hold to the traditional view discredit your profession of faith. I do not think this is what you are implying.

However, what is most salient is this: "I would just suggest that you be very sure of your position before telling people they must deny reality to become Christian."

1) Reality is NOT necessarily what is perceived and/or what is concluded from what is perceived. In Romans 1 the Word of God, through the inspiration of the apostle Paul, says that what can be known about God (God is assumed to be) is CLEARLY seen in the things which are made (created), namely His eternal power and divinity. Even further, it says that men are without excuse because the existence of God and He as Creator is manifest IN THEM; an inherent knowledge as part of all men being created in the image of God. Further, it is also clear that this Creator God is angry with all the inhabitants of the earth due to man's sinfulness. But, despite the perspicuity of the general revelation, men reject this testimony and substitute their own ideas (lies) in regard to the origin of all things. Here, men deny REALITY due to their innate hatred of God.

2) The writer of Hebrews (11:3), again under the divine inspiration of God, says that BY FAITH we understand that all things were created by God and are not the result of accident, nor did God take existing material and form that which we now perceive. Is the writer referring to a "blind" faith, ala Bonhoeffer? No, not at all. This faith is based upon facts revealed but not those which are simply perceived, because men via empirical observation, aka: science, cannot determine the origin of all things. These facts are revealed in special revelation, the Scriptures wherein God Himself has seen it good to make known His majesty and creativity. This He has done in far more places than simply Genesis 1 & 2, e.g., Ps 33:6; Job 38ff; Isa 40:26; Jer 10:16; Jh 1:3; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 2Pet 3:5. In short, "science" is inadequate to speak to the matter of origins.

3) I am convinced that there is a horrid exchange happening in our day, albeit a marvelous one to behold. Science, is only plausible because it "borrows" from the Christian faith. There can be no axioms, laws of nature, predictable behavior, scientific theory, etc., unless the biblical God exists. There is no regularity to be found in randomness. There can be no existence without God. Something cannot come out of nothing. On a more simple level, one could never expect the "sun to rise" another day never mind predicate that it will rise at a particular hour day after day based upon science's presupposition that all things happen via chance. A denial of the Christian God who by His power and providence not only created all things according to His perfect will and also directs all things to their appointed ends for His glory de facto eliminates any possibility of such things as reason or logic. On the other hand, we have those who reject the traditional understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 and hold that "science" must be the source of truth in regard to the matter of origins. How sad this is. For those who have been and continue to be, for the most part, the stronghold of science are those who deny the biblical Christian God. One of their primary goals is to discover the "origin of life." Billions of dollars and countless hours are spent searching for "clues" which will bring forth an answer to this question; Where did life (we) come from? And, How did all things come to be as we now know them? The presupposition which underlies these questions, even the questions themselves flow from the mind which denies the existence of God (Rom 1:18ff). The answer is found in SCRIPTURE... not science and is apprehended by faith. But truly, how can a scientist who rejects the existence of the biblical Christian God who is born a God hater, who is blind to the truth, whose heart is darkened and whose mind is opposed to truth ever hope to know reality? Yet, there are Christians who adopt this humanistic presupposition in order to "understand" what the Bible says concerning creation.

4) The accusation sometimes comes that if God did create the heavens and earth in the span of 6 24-hour days, then He (God) is a deceiver, for the truth of creation is allegedly hidden from men. Again, this accusation is spiritually bankrupt for it denies that there was a Fall and the noetic affects of it. The truth is that all men are born blind, haters of God and incapable of understanding even the most basic things of themselves, never mind how all things came to be. Sin has blinded them to the truth and they by nature exchange the truth, even those truths which can be perceived with the natural eye, for a lie, i.e., their own godless ideas. The deception is their own for again what can be known of God, mainly His omnipotence and divinity are clearly seen in the things which are made. They are therefore self-deceived and stand opposed to what God has made manifest around them and even within them. God is not and cannot be a deceiver. That God created the heavens and earth in 6 24-hour days is clearly written in His infallible Word. It is embraced as truth by faith. When someone rejects this truth, then what else could one conclude than there must have been billions of years gone by during which all things came to be as we see them; i.e., without the biblical God then everything, anything is postulated to answer these questions.

Well, I'm certainly no "expert" but I can read Scripture and understand it by God's grace. And, I am thankful that I was taught by such men as Dr. Vern Poythress the traditional biblical hermeneutic. That he would contradict that which he taught is nothing short of amazing and extremely disheartening. Sin is a wicked thing and the Devil is a deceiver and the entire world is under his power. He is the arch enemy of the Church which he is always trying to destroy, even knowing that he shall never succeed in doing so. Thus, I am not surprised that good men would question the simple and plain understanding of creation.

In His grace,

Wow

Tom