Quote
(Fred) I guess my initial question is, why is this a problem? So the light holders are created on day four, so what? Why does that mean a 6/24 hour understanding of Genesis 1 is in error? I have never understood why long agers believe this day four argument is somehow the magic bullet to shut down a literal reading of Genesis. Usually they don't like light existing prior to the sun and stars, but the sun and stars are not necessary for light to exist. The new heaven and the new earth will be illumined by God himself (Rev. 21:23). God set up some source of light for marking off time for three days, until his creation of the lightholders on day four. Why is that so hard to believe? Perhaps someone can explain?
It is not difficult to believe, however they do have some arguments. They state for instance: (1) The two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1. (2) The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness. (3) The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it. (4) The argument from semantics showing that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered within the semantic range of the Genesis 1 creation 'days'. (4b) The argument from semantics concerning 'evening' and 'morning' shows that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered to fit with the very narrow semantic ranges of these words, that refer to the time of day when the sun rises/sets. (5) The metaphorical interpretation of the Exodus 20/31 passages is most consistent with the FI view on Genesis 1. (6) The eternal nature of the seventh day requires a metaphorical interpretation. (7) Moses purposely avoided using the standard grammatical pattern of enumerating time periods in his construction of the Genesis narrative. Here is a paper on the FI: Genesis One and Beyond: An Investi...stions of Creation in the Biblical Texts with its addendum One, Two, Three, and an Ordinal for Thee - Grammatical Irregularities, Definitions, and Genesis One. To have a balanced representation of the other view, maybe we can debate these with someone who supports the view, if someone would like to send the author an e-mail (at the top of the papers). shrug

Bruce Waltke, professor of OT at RTS and professor emeritus at Regent College in Vancouver, also supports this view. His book on Genesis is rather informative: Genesis a Commentary (Zondervan).

Reformed and Always Reforming,