Bible Study Does the Bible communicate a young age of the Earth, Yes or No?

[Sparkey]

I've also found two (3) more articles from different sources.
A Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan (now deceased) who takes a "literal view".
Hebrew scholars who officially are "neutral" but then state they personally hold a "literal view".

These will wait, as I am also deep in study of more secular subjects. This should also serve to give time for comment and discussion of what has been presented thus far.

 

[n2thelight]

In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the EARTH.......................................where does it say WHEN????????

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the EARTH.......................................where does it say WHEN????????

If you're looking for a date, it doesn't. But it does say that it was one, literal, 24-hour day.

 

[Sparkey]

In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the EARTH.......................................where does it say WHEN????????

Well, so far it looks like the Creation Week (we're not agreed that it was an actual 168-hour week) happened approximately 1056 years before the flood. That's not as precise as it sounds because the time period mentioned is the amount of time from Adam to Noah. That calculation is derived from Genesis 5 where there is little reason to believe that "telescoping" (purposeful leaving out or jumping from Father to Grandson, etc.) of the generations has occurred.

We could look at the chronology found in Gen 11 where there is more controversy about Arpachshad, his progenitor and progeny (but haven't).

When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. 11 And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah...

For the most part, this is left up to the reader. There is too much to consider while trying to correlate various Gen 5 // Gen 11 ages with the length of the reigns of the Kings, and then compare that to the known dates of the monarch//rulers of other lands.

Seems that this study is looking to confirm or deny or at least attend to thoughts about where (if any) a million years or more could be inserted. Typically (I can not say "traditionally" --> see below) the word "yom," translated "day," is used to mean an approximate 24 hour period. The possibility of this word meaning "era" or "epoch" is considered because that is the only place we see where millions of years could be inserted into the Biblical narrative. Hence the occasional debate style you see here.

I suspect that each party will have come to the discussion with his/her view (as I have) and will leave with that view reinforced, strange as that may seem.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke



Notes on "Traditionally"
Some Medieval Understandings of Creation "Days." The Alexandrian church father Origen (ca. A.D. 185 - ca. 254), an accomplished practitioner and defender of the allegorical method of interpretation[1], is credited with being the first to understand the creation "days" in an allegorical and non-literal manner.[2]

[1] Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (1866; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1961), 187-203

[2] The decisive section from Origen's On First Principles: Book Four (excerpt quoted in Karifried Froehlich, trans./ed., Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 63) noted that the days of creation cannot be understood to be literal just as it "is foolish enough to believe that, like a human farmer, God planted a garden to the east of Eden and created in it a visible, physical tree of life...."
See also Terence E. Fretheim, "Were the Days of Creation Twenty-Four Hours Long?" in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald R. Youngblood (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 12-35.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Sparrow, the problem with that reasoning is that we don't really know how long it was in the Garden between Adam's creation, Eve's creation, and The Fall. It could have been a matter of minutes, it could have been 1500 years. We don't know. The word for "lived" in Genesis 5:3 usually means "sustained life" and prior to The Fall, Adam didn't have to "sustain life" because God provided everything. I believe, though I can't prove, that his 130 years prior to the birth of Cain were his years after the Garden, not from his creation. Personally, I don't believe the Earth is anymore than 10,000 years old, and a lingering time in the Garden would account for any discrepancies in physical evidence and the biblical accounts.

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow, the problem with that reasoning is that we don't really know how long it was in the Garden between Adam's creation, Eve's creation, and The Fall. It could have been a matter of minutes, it could have been 1500 years. We don't know. The word for "lived" in Genesis 5:3 usually means "sustained life" and prior to The Fall, Adam didn't have to "sustain life" because God provided everything. I believe, though I can't prove, that his 130 years prior to the birth of Cain were his years after the Garden, not from his creation. Personally, I don't believe the Earth is anymore than 10,000 years old, and a lingering time in the Garden would account for any discrepancies in physical evidence and the biblical accounts.

I'm just looking for places to insert spaces of L O N G time. The Bible is clear about how old Adam was when his son was born and the length of time from when Seth was born to when his son came along.

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

:rolling it would not let me say the word for Genesis in Hebrew, auto-censored me.


Oh, I see what you are saying. Maybe the word "lived" excludes the period before the fall and doesn't include the time in the Garden because that time was not "sustained" in the same ways. I've not heard that before but it's worth looking into. I'll keep my eye out. Do you have anywhere to point me toward for this? Not saying you need to, but just wondering.

That consideration would also have to be fitted into the "altogether" statement that follows (that sums the total years of Adam's life) and appears in direct contradiction to the total (altogether) being 930 years. Not saying that it's an impossible thing, but only that at first glance, it looks improbably awkward to me. I try to resist things that change the face value of words (unless the context demands it or at least clearly shows or suggests it).

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Sadly, Sparrow, I am probably one of only a handful of individuals who believe this and still embrace a young Earth. Most such believers don't agree with me. It is based on my own studies, my limited knowledge of Hebrew buttressed by a good lexicon, as well as the intense study of Genesis, and there are still many gaps in the idea. I see evidence for my "15 minutes" comment in how quickly after the creation of Eve the temptation by Satan occurs. I see evidence for longer than that in the fact that Adam can't be held responsible for not educating Eve in what God had said if he didn't have time to say anything. I don't really see any evidence for 1500 years before The Fall, but if there can be a gap of more than 15 minutes between Eve's creation and the temptation, who is to say there couldn't be a longer gap? But again, most who espouse such a gap believe in a billions-of-years-old Earth. I don't. But we just don't know for certain how long the stay in the Garden was, and we likely won't until we talk to Adam and Eve in heaven.

 

[Sparkey]

I am not adverse to these thoughts, TND, not at all. I'm prepping for my thoughts about the "Rebuked Job" discussion, but want to continue along the Yom/Day "gap" analysis before we go there. Your thought fits in well here.

The crowded week of a lifelong learner says, "I've got an hour for an online quiz, then off to my Econ class and back 3 hours later with only my studies about rock identification and intro to calculus b/w me and the week to follow." You are very welcome to continue to develop this concept and I'll look forward to reading more about it soon.

 

[reba]

Don't faint on me again Numbers but I agree. I agree by faith and a Genesis class I took in the 70s from a Rabbi turned Baptist

 

[Sparkey]

:nod Hmmmm... two witnesses. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks!

 

[chessman]

Chessman, I'm trying to understand your point of view and your correlation between Day One and Day Two. http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-8.htm

This is from the link you provided and you"ll see it calls Day Two "the second day." [/QUOTE]
Westtexas, I've been traveling and not able to follow along closely. But I did want to make sure I responded to your thoughful and relavent quetions. Neither the Hebrew text nor the link to the Hebrew with transliteration and English translation that I provided actually translates Gen 1:8 as “the second dayâ€. The text actually says “day second†or Yowm Seni using the transliterated Hebrew. There is no definite article “the†for any of the days except for day six and day seven. And Day one is just that, “one†and not “firstâ€. Though the Hebrew word for “first" could have been used by God and Moses, it wasn’t used. Thus far in this reply I’m just stating the facts and no observations, implications or even opinions. But here goes with my opinions:
My point of view is to be as precise with the text as possible. If we are not all this way, within this study, we may be missing something or may be reading something into the text that’s simply not intended by the text. For example:

If you're looking for a date, it doesn't. But it does say that it was one, literal, 24-hour day.

I realize this is not your quote but it just shows how unproductive a Bible Study can get when we don’t look really, really honestly and fairly at the Scripture. Obvioulsy, the text doesn't actually say 24 hour day. That's somone's opinion of what the text says.
My other point of view is that by specifically not using an ordinal number (or definite article) for day one the text actually precludes the idea of it being “the first day†as in the Earth was not even created until then or rotating around the Sun. Especially since Gen 1:1 already made clear that the heavens and the earth were already created, in the Beginning. Others can read and decide from themselves their own opinions or conclusions or points of view (obviously). However, to say the text says “24 hours†or even “the first day†is frankly just plain incorrect.

Would you not agree that if Day Two is the second day, that Day One is the first day?

To answer your question directly, no. I would definitely not agree with understanding “day one†to mean “the first day†even though, yes I realize many great English translations do just that. As I said, maybe that’s a key factor within the whole disagreement. Whether they are “incorrect†as you say that I feel below is maybe a bit harsh and not actuallythe way I feel. It's not so much that they were “incorrect†as “less preciseâ€. But as any time spent reading a direct word for word Hebrew to English translation will demonstrate, it’s just plain hard to understand and to do for long periods of time, anyway. I only do it when I feel there’s value added.

You feel that the NIV, KJV, etc. are incorrect in their translation of the "first day"? Sparrow has done a good job explaining the difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers and I'm not sure you'll find any Hebrew translator who would disagree. I'd like to hear your connection between "one day" (if you feel the first day is incorrect) and the second day. Thanks for your thoughts.

I feel a more precise translation is “Day one†versus Day First or First day or The First Day is true to the text (Bible Study). Because that’s what the text actually says. Several translations do use day one.
I knew the definition of ordinal and cardinal numbers already. I’m the one that pointed out that the ordinal number is not used for day one (but could have been). But yes, I agree with Sparrow’s definition of them. My “connection†is that "day one" preceded day second within the sequence of God’s creation. Nothing less, nothing more. And yes, I get the point that "almost" makes it an ordinal number after all. But again, the Hebrew word for "first" is not used here. I certainly do not believe the Genesis 1 text is saying it (the creation events within Day Second) was 24 hours past Day One (as a Yowm is not necessarily 24 hours Biblically speaking) and it certainly doesn’t have to be placed on Ussher’s or Sparrow’s calendar for multiple reasons, not the least of which as the Genesis 1 text doesn’t give a date for Creation (but once again, God could have done just that if He intended to). Anyway, that's my thoughts the clearest that I know how to make them. Thanks for asking.

 

[chessman]

Who has specifically said this? I have not. ... it is because I do not wish to be misrepresented by an incorrect characterization.

Sparrow, I neither said that you used this argument nor thought that you did nor even believed it was true. It came from a deleted post, as I recall. But you would certainly recognize that it's a common argument made by some young Earth creation proponents. Common in that they say it over, and over again not that it's a majority opinion.

 

[chessman]

(post #96) What does the J.E. say about the word "YOM"?...

Except when accompanied with the definite article "The", a day is a day.

(Post #97)The Bible Encyclopedia … Here is what they did say (in part):

“When the word “day†(yom) is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day.â€

(post 98)I've found this article in an archive. It is titled,

"Authenticating The "Day-Age" Theory.​

A Critique of Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor's article, "Is The Bible Clear About The Age of the Earth and Universe?" and a logical and systematic defense of the "day-age" theory. (Author unknown)


When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

… then from (post #100)

One possible exception to this might lie in the book of Hosea. For hundreds of years some Bible commentators have stated that the "days" in Hosea 6:2 refer to a year, years, thousand years or possibly more. 5 Hosea 6:2 reads: "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence." If these commentators are accurate in their assessment this then becomes a clear cut example of what Bebber and Taylor say does not exist…..

And on and on the debates of various “rules†of deciding go. What can we conclude from all this? To me, nothing other than evidently the Bible doesn’t state it clearly enough that every God loving Christian (or Hebrew) can agree on it. Which of course is pretty conclusive evidence (in my mind anyway) that the answer to the OP question (the title of the thread) is clearly NO.
Here’s my analytical why of resolving all these differing “expert†opinions on Yown’s allowable usage, anyway:
Group Y = a group of experts that believe in 24-hour Genesis 1 “daysâ€.
Group O = a group of experts that believe in greater than 2-hour Genesis 1 “daysâ€.
Group Y could be right, or group O could be right or they both could be wrong. They cannot both be right since their statements are mutually exclusive, logically speaking.
Groups Y and Groups O both agree that the Hebrew word, Yowm, can and does mean greater than 24 hours yet a definite period of time depending on the context of the passage in question as evidenced elsewhere in Scripture. That seems like an acceptable and reasonable stipulation by all parties (and me). Both parties agree that the “context†is the Creation of the Heavens, the Earth, the plants, the fish, the animals and finally (and lastly) Man. So the question is then what’s the context of the passage. Then begins the disagreement…
If the context is the dating of the Creation of the Earth and Scripture says “26 Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills.
Then I think the context is “ancient†and “age-old†and my question is why even try to find a “rule†such as Yown’s exclusive meaning when used with a definite article, ordinals, evening/morning or a combination of all three? The real question is the context of the passage, not some supposed “grammatical ruleâ€. Frankly, I think all the âgroups†that are trying to find a “rule†are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I realize this is not your quote but it just shows how unproductive a Bible Study can get when we don’t look really, really honestly and fairly at the Scripture.

The fact you don't personally agree with that comment is no reflection on the honest study I have done, so knock off the personal asides, deal?

Obvioulsy, the text doesn't actually say 24 hour day. That's somone's opinion of what the text says.[/FONT]

The usage of the sentence structure in the original Hebrew demands that we read it as a 24-hour day. There is no other way to read it. You can call the sky red if you want, and insist that someone's "honest study" that says it is actually blue is incorrect, but that won't make you right and the other person wrong. In fact, quite the opposite, and your denial won't stand up to the facts.

 

[Sparkey]

chessman, your approach and method is becoming more clear and I would thank you for that.

Rather than trying to respond directly to your conclusions and reasoning in opposition style, I'd like to ask that you allow me (and others) to interject their thoughts and bring in the thoughts of experts on the subject. I trust this will not exceed your patience with dealing with the thoughts and opinions of others. May I also remind you that I've hinted that I do not necessarily subscribe to the "6,000 year and younger" group because I've not been able to prove that particular assertion in any definitive manner. Before I present the work of a respected linguist on the topic under discussion I would like to ask you to contrast what you have said about the relative age of the mountains being "ancient" and what the Lord has said about His creative acts: Isa 48:3, "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass," would seem an excellent target for further research, yes? This is the link from the tool you provided: Isa 48:3.

Question: Speaking of "the beginning" declared by the Mouth of God, how did it come (wat·tā·ḇō·nāh. וַתָּבֹֽאנָה׃ // came)?
Answer: It came piṯ·’ōm (suddenly). Here are the cross references for that word: Link to piṯ·’ōm (suddenly).

Are the mountains ancient? Yes, exceedingly so. They are older than I am, older than my father and his father. Are they older than the Great Flood? I am unsure as yet. I get the feeling that God is communicating that His commands are not resisted by that which he addresses. He is speaking to a stubborn people who have resisted what He has spoken. There is a sense that His will should be done, on earth, as it is in heaven. Is this not the Lord's very prayer?

 

[Sparkey]

You can call the sky red if you want, and insist that someone's "honest study" that says it is actually blue is incorrect, but that won't make you right and the other person wrong. In fact, quite the opposite, and your denial won't stand up to the facts.

This reminds me of a quote from "Honest Abe"

'"Father," said one of the rising generation to his paternal progenitor, "if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would calling it a leg make it one?"

The quote is attributed to Lincoln as having said it. Is it too pedantic of me to mention that I've only found this particular quote in Edward Josiah Stears' Notes on Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853) p. 46? Did good ol' Abe say that? He may have said something about dogs, legs and tail, but and if he did, it's like the Bible verse, "A house divided against itself cannot stand": Lincoln said it, but his contemporaries knew that he wasn't claiming it as original.

Interesting interlude though, turning toward experts now, starting with the discourse and treastise (formal and systematic written discourse) of esteemed Gerhard F. Hasel, John Nevins Andrews Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan (1994).

THE "DAYS" OF CREATION IN GENESIS 1:

LITERAL "DAYS" OR FIGURATIVE "PERIODS / EPOCHS" OF TIME?
​

WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT
The question of whether the six days of creation were actual 24-hour periods of time or only symbolic representations of millions of years has been debated for centuries. During the past century and a half, with recognition of the theory of evolution and its vast eons of time, the matter has been under more serious scrutiny.

The following article is a thorough review of this issue. The historical background and the literary nature of the creation account are discussed in detail and related to a variety of contemporary interpretations. The author concludes with ten considerations which support the concept of a literal creation week with seven consecutive, twenty-four-hour days.

I. INTRODUCTION
The increased focus of recent decades on creationism, "creation-science,"1 "origin science,"2 and "theistic science"3 has created a climate in which old questions are raised anew with specific focus and additional sophistication. One of those questions concerns the meaning of the term "day" in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3.

The nature of the Genesis account of creation with its six "days" (Genesis 1:5-31) followed by the "seventh day" (Genesis 2:2-3) is of special interest, since it is customarily understood to mean a short time of one week. This short time in the creation account is under debate on the basis of the current naturalistic theory of evolution. The contrast is between the short time of the creation account and the long ages demanded by naturalistic evolution.

This paper will seek to accomplish several interrelated tasks: 1) to provide some methodological observations with a brief history of interpretation; 2) to cite representative recent published opinions suggesting that the "days" of creation are long epochs or periods of time and not literal twenty-four hour days; 3) to present the data in Genesis 1 in relationship with other data found in the Old Testament; and 4) to apply to the data of Genesis 1 the standard linguistic and semantic investigations requisite in sound scholarship based on the best current knowledge.

He goes on to discuss methodologies (rather dry reading, if you ask me - but informative) then picks up the subject

1. Representative Arguments for Long Ages. The clearly stated purpose of current attempts to interpret the "days" of Genesis 1 in terms other than face value is often quite clearly stated. A few citations from respected scholars will speak for themselves.

John C. L. Gibson, a British scholar, argues that Genesis 1 is to be taken as a "metaphor,"21 "story," or "parable,"22 and not as a straightforward record of events of creation. He writes in his 1981 Genesis commentary as follows: "...if we understand 'day' as equivalent to 'epoch' or 'era' we can bring the sequence of Creation in the chapter into relationship with the accounts of modern evolutionary theory, and so go some way towards recovering the Bible's reputation in our scientific age....In so far as this argument begins with an attempt to go beyond the literal meaning and to take the week assigned to Creation as a parable of a much longer period, it is to be commended." 23

In 1983 the German commentator HansjöBrästates: "The creation 'day' which is described to contain 'day' and evening [sic]' is not a unit of time which can be determined with a watch. It is a divine day in which a thousand years are equal to but yesterday [Ps. 90:4 in margin]. Day one in creation is a divine day. It cannot be an earthly day since the temporal measure, the sun, is still missing. It will, therefore, do no harm to the creation account to understand creation in rhythms of millions of years.24

D. Stuart Briscoe, an American progressive creationist, addresses the issue in his commentary on Genesis as well: "The natural scientist talks convincingly in terms of millions of years and evolutionary eras while the Bible believer looks at the six -days and wonders what on earth to do....It is not at all unreasonable to believe that 'day' (Hebrew, yom), which can be translated quite literally as 'period,' refers not to literal days but to eras and ages in which God's progressive work was being accomplished.25

Explanations of this kind can be duplicated and derive typically from scholars who are in the concordist camp. More precisely they belong to the branch of "broad concordists" who in recent times are associated with progressive creationism.26

2. Analysis and Evaluation of Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. Psalm 90:4. Let us begin with considerations concerning Psalm 90:4. This passage has been invoked time and again to indicate that the creation "days" are to be non-literal, standing for long periods/epochs/ages of time.

Psalm 90:4 reads: "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or ['and'] as a watch in the night" (New American Standard Bible).27 Of immediate interest is the comparison of the long time-period of 1,000 years with but "yesterday" and "a watch in the night." This Scripture passage contains a comparative particle in the original Hebrew to make the comparison between 1,000 years and "yesterday" and "a watch in the night." The comparative particle is rendered into English either as "like" or "as."

From the point of view of Hebrew syntax this comparative particle serves not only the expression "yesterday" but also the expression "as a watch in the night." It applies to both phrases. This demonstrates that the comparison is not between a "day" being like 1,000 years. A thousand years with God are "like" yesterday, that is, the past day, or "like" "a watch in the night," which is even a briefer period of time than "yesterday." The point is that God reckons time differently from the way humans reckon time.

Genesis 1 is not interested in depicting how God reckons time. The Genesis context of creation speaks of "days" in the sense of creation time during which God created this world and whereby He set the rhythm of the week. Genesis 1 does not explain or address how time is reckoned on God's scale, but how the creation "days" set the norm for subsequent days in the weekly cycle of time.

Furthermore, Genesis 1 lacks any comparative particle such as "like" or "as" in connection with the usage of the term "day." The lack in Genesis 1 of a Hebrew comparative expression with either the term "day," or the expression "evening and morning," indicates that no comparison is intended. Comparison is not the issue in Genesis 1. The issue is the amount of time God uses to create the world and whether this time period is identical to the seven-day week which is the rhythm of historical time.

From contextual as well as grammatical-syntactical and semantic points of view the application of Psalm 90:4 to Genesis 1 does not work. Appropriate linguistic and phraseological criteria of comparison are lacking. Those who link the two texts are insensitive to contextual, linguistic and phraseological criteria. The impression is left that those who compare the "days" of Genesis 1 with the "yesterday" and the "watch in the night" or the 1,000 years in God's scale of time compare apples with oranges.

Another type of objection has been noted in making the creation "days" into long periods of time: if one were to read the "sixth day as the sixth epoch of creation, this opens the door to some kind of pre-Adamic homo [sic] sapiens."28 In other words, the long-age substitution for a literal "day" does away with the view that Adam and Eve were the first human beings which God created on Earth.

A third difficulty relates to the fact that Psalm 90 is not a creation psalm. Contextually speaking Psalm 90 does not address the issue how God regards the "days" of creation but how humans are to regard time when compared to time in the realm of God.

Fourth, Psalm 90 does not even use the term "day" by itself. It is used in a linguistic relationship in verse 4 in which two words are syntactically joined together. The English language has one word for that linguistic relationship, "yesterday." But "yesterday" in Psalm 90:4 is in parallelism with the expression "as a watch in the night," i.e., a very short interval of time. This means that the 1,000 years are not compared simply to a day but to a short interval of time.

In short, Psalm 90:4 does not define the meaning of the designation "day" in Genesis 1. In view of the problems cited and other difficulties that exist,29 it is not surprising that many of those who currently take the "day/age theory" as a solution to the tension between science and religion refrain from referring to Psalm 90:4. This text when read on its own terms does not address the issue of the length of the creation "day."

(more to follow)

 

[Sparkey]

THE "DAYS" OF CREATION IN GENESIS 1:

LITERAL "DAYS" OR FIGURATIVE "PERIODS / EPOCHS" OF TIME?
​

Hasel concludes his discussion about 2Pet 3:8 with, "The intent of this passage is well put by Lloyd R. Bailey, a broad concordist himself: "The text of 2 Peter (3:8) has been misused by those who would bring it to bear upon the word 'day' in Genesis 1....Rather, the purpose of that text is to point out that the Lord is not slow about his promise...but is forbearing...not wishing that any should perish...' (3:9; cf v. 4). That is, God is not subject to time in the sense that humans are ("...as some count slowness," v. 9). The intent, then, is to make a statement about God's fidelity to promises, and not to define the meaning of the word 'day' as it is used in Genesis 1.30

It seems best to let 2 Peter 3:8 make its own point and not to use it for something which is topically, contextually, and linguistically unrelated.

He then goes on to consider the arguments made about a different aspect:

3. "Days of Revelation"? The theory that the creation "days" are actually "days of revelation" is held by a few scholars today.

This theory was brought to prominence by the Scottish geologist Hugh Miller in the nineteenth century.31 In this century P. J. Wiseman has revived it in his 1946 publication, Creation Revealed in Six Days, which was reprinted in 1977.32

According to this interpretation God did not create the world in six days, but He "revealed" and explained in six literal days to man what He had already done over many spans of time. The recurring phrase, "and God said," is taken to support the theory that the "days" of creation are actually "days of revelation." In this theory the world does not require a relatively recent origin nor creation in six literal 24-hour days.

It has been noted incisively that the "days of revelation theory," also called the "vision theory," rests to a large degree upon a "misunderstanding of the word 'made', in Exodus 20:11" 33 for which Wiseman claims the meaning "showed."34

The meaning of "showed" is not a valid meaning for the Hebrew term 'asah. There is no Hebrew-English dictionary which supports this meaning for this Hebrew term. The Hebrew term 'asah, which is used more than 2,600 times in the Old Testament, means "to make, manufacture, produce, do, etc."35 but never once does it mean "to show" in either the Old Testament or in extra-biblical Hebrew.36 The meaning "to show" is invented for the sake of the theory. In view of this fact it is not surprising that the "days of revelation theory" has not found much support.37

In summary, current broad concordists seek to interpret Genesis 1 in some sort of "figurative, symbolic, or otherwise loose reading -- such as the idea that the 'days' of Genesis 1 may be interpreted as long periods of time."38 The purpose is to make an accommodation to current claims of the evolutionary theory for long time. Based on this time frame hypothesis, Scripture is reinterpreted to bring about some sort of harmony between the claims of the biblical creation account and naturalistic evolution. Those who seek to make adjustments in Scripture for the sake of concordism are known as broad concordists.

In contrast, strict concordists are scholars of equal erudition and skill. They are also interested in bringing about harmony between science and religion. However, they are unwilling to give the biblical text a "loose reading." They agree that a meaning of a text is to be based on the internal criteria of language and its usage according to the commonly accepted standards of linguistics. They agree that the context of Scripture is primary and that the linguistic standards need to follow sound grammatical-syntactical conventions. Thus, strict concordists are fully aware of the tensions but resist forcing a meaning on the biblical text that is not supported by sound linguistic analysis.

Hasel now turns his consideration to what I now call the TND (thisnumbersdisconnected) view of a 24 hour period with:

IV. THE LITERARY GENRE OF GENESIS 1

1. Literary Genre/Form Argument. The recent Genesis commentary by evangelical scholar Victor P. Hamilton takes the position that the "days" of Genesis 1 must be taken as non-figurative and non-metaphorical, that is, as literal, consisting of solar days of 24 hours.39 However, as a broad concordist he is already committed to long ages and remains interested in bringing about a harmony with modern naturalistic science. In order to do so he appeals to "a literary reading of Gen. 1 [which] still permits the retention of 'day' as a solar day of 24 hours."40 How is this accomplished?

Hamilton speaks of a "literary reading" of the Genesis creation account. The "literary reading" allows him to understand the "days" of creation literally but "not as a chronological account of how many hours God invested in His creating project, but as an analogy of God's creative activity."41 In this view the 24-hour "days" in Genesis 1 are but an "analogy" based on a "literary [non-historical] reading" of the Genesis creation account.

This view of a "literary reading" is dependent on Charles E. Hummel.42 Hummel argues that even if the "days" in Genesis 1 are to be meant as solar days of 24 hours, which he believes they are, "the question still remains whether the [literary] format is figurative or literal, that is, analogy of God's creative activity or a chronological account of how many hours he worked."43 Hummel believes that the "who" and "why" but not the "how" of creation is important (following Bernard Ramm) and that, therefore, the "analogy...provides a model for human work."44

The "analogy" theory consists of the understanding of the literal "day" as "a metaphor" which uses "the commonplace (or commonly understood, if you wish) meaning of a word" (viz. the word "day") "in a figurative manner."45 The analogy transfer suggested by the "analogy" theory removes the schema of six days of work and one day of rest from a chronological piece of information and makes it into a broad pattern of work-and-rest applicable to humanity.46

 

[Sparkey]

Hasel concludes his treatment of the view that is contrasted to our thisnumbersdisconnected view of 24 hour days (and pardon me, for characterizing this with so few words, I've not forgotten what you said about the time before the Fall of man, in the Garden) with:

"As appealing as this "analogy" theory seems to be, the issue is still the problem of the contextual and literary warrant within the context of Genesis 1 and the Bible as a whole for taking the time designation "day" as simply analogous for work/rest. Hummel is forced (followed by Hamilton) to redefine the literary genre of Genesis l from that of a straightforward creation account to a genre which is designated as a "semi-poetic narrative"47 which has significance. This falls under the "historical-cultural" approach to creation.48

It is evident that these broad concordist scholars are partially influenced by form-criticism and its genre method of interpretation. Form-criticism, a sub-method of the historical-critical method, was begun by Hermann Gunkel, known as the father of form criticism, at the turn of the century.49

Gunkel raised the question, "Are the narratives of Genesis history or legend?"50 His premise is that "many things reported in Genesis...go directly against our better knowledge."51 The idea of "our better knowledge" is an admission on Gunkel's part that a naturalistic evolutionary world view provides the authoritative norm of what is history or legend. Thus, he suggested that the literary genre of Genesis is not history but "legend." Gunkel was the first liberal scholar to assign to the creation account in Genesis a literary genre other than history in the sense of a factual account. He has been followed by other liberal scholars, by neo-orthodox theologians, and now also in part by neo-evangelical scholars who are broad concordists."

 

[Sparkey]

Hasel's treatise continues with essential observations:

There are several essential observations to be made in view of this plethora of current opinions on the nature of the literary genre of the Genesis creation account.

1. The obvious consensus is that there is no consensus on the literary genre of Genesis 1. [Sparrow comment: "this is essentially the 'chessman observation'] This makes the literary genre approach for a non-literary reading of Genesis 1 suspect of special pleading.
   
   Since there is no consensus, the careful interpreter will be rather cautious and avoid jumping on the bandwagon of literary genre identification with the aim to redefine the literal intent of Genesis 1. [This is the Sparrowhawke position]
   
   The intention of form-critical genre description from its beginning, the time of Gunkel to the present, has been to remove the text of Genesis 1 from being considered to be historical and factual in nature.62
2. The "literary genre" approach reveals it to be another way, at first used by non-concordists, to remove the creation account of Genesis from functioning as an authoritative, literal text which has implications for the relationship of science and the Bible. It is rightly suggested that "the way in which God revealed the history of creation must itself be justified by Scripture"63 and not by appeal to form-critical literary genre description from which historicity is removed.
3. Interpreters following the "literary genre" approach with the aim to remove the creation account from the realm of its literal intent feel free to interpret the "days" of creation in a literal and grammatical way.

The use of the "literary genre" approach is meant to restrict the meaning of Genesis 1 to a thought-form which does not demand a factual, historical reading of what took place. The "literary genre" redefinition of the creation account is intended to remove the creation account from informing modern readers on "how" and "in what manner" and in what time God created the world. It simply wishes to affirm minimalistically that God is Creator. And that affirmation is meant to be a theological, nonscientific statement which has no impact on how the world and universe came into being and developed subsequently.

The "literary genre" approach is based on a literary critical methodology,64 which is intended to assign to the creation account as a whole a function different from that of historicity or factuality. In this case it does not matter whether the creation "days" are taken as literal 24-hour days in its intent, because the account as a whole, including the creation "days," has a meaning other than a historical or factual one.

Here is his footnote #64, about Literary Critical Methodology:
64. See Norman C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 69-70.

 

[Sparkey]

Skipping parts here but it should be noted that Hasel's almost exhaustive treatment includes his considerations from various commentaries, before he begins to present the "Literal View" which reads to me is his view:

4. Considerations Based on Semantics. The field of semantics in linguistic study refers to what is called signification.92 It deals with the issue of "the accurate evaluation of the meaning of expressions [words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc.] which have actually been used."93

Semantics calls for attention to the crucial question of the exact meaning of the Hebrew word yom. Could the designation "day" in Genesis 1 possibly have a figurative meaning in this chapter? Is it to be understood on the basis of the norms of semantics as a literal "day"? This matter of semantics is particularly important in view of the fact that the Hebrew term yom in the singular and plural has a large variety of meanings, including extended meanings such as "time," "life time," and so on. Is it possible to import an extended meaning from the Old Testament into Genesis 1? Could this not solve the problem of the conflict of a short creation week and the long ages called for by naturalistic evolution?

The Hebrew term yom, in its variety of forms, can mean aside from a literal "day" also a time or period of time (Judges 14:4) and in a more general sense "a month [of] time" (Genesis 29:14), "two years [of] time" (2 Samuel 13:23;14:28; Jeremiah 28:3,11), "three weeks [of] time" (Daniel 11:2, 3). In the plural form it can mean "year" (1 Samuel 27:7), a "life time" (Genesis 47:8), and so forth. Any good lexicon will provide a comprehensive listing of the various possibilities.94

In view of the wealth of usages of this Hebrew term, it is imperative to study the usage of the term yom in Genesis 1 so that it can be compared with other usages. Does this chapter contain the needed indicators by which yom can clearly be recognized to have a literal or non-literal meaning? How is this term used in Genesis 1? Is it used together with combinations of other words, prepositions, genitive relations, construct state, and the like, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, which would indicate a non-literal meaning? It is exactly these kinds of semantic-syntactical combinations which inform us about the intention of the meaning of this term.

Let us present the facts of the usage of the term yom, "day," in Genesis 1 as any scholar who knows Hebrew can describe them:

1. The term yom is always used in the singular.
2. The term yom is always joined to a numeral. In Genesis 1:5 it is a cardinal and elsewhere in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 it is always an ordinal. We will pay attention to this below.
3. The term yom is never combined with a preposition, genitive combination, construct state, compound construction, or the like. It always appears as a plain noun.
4. The term yom is consistently defined by a temporal phrase in the preceding sentence, "and there was evening and there was morning." This clause serves in a defining function for the word "day."
5. The complementary creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 contains a non-literal, figurative meaning of the singular of the term yom, "day." When the non-literal meaning is intended the semantic-syntactical conventions known from the remainder of the Old Testament for such a meaning are employed. This is the case in the non-literal usage in Genesis 2:4.

Let us note these criteria as they are employed in Genesis 2:4. The noun yom is joined to the preposition be to read beyom. Secondly, it is used in a construct relation with the infinitive form of asah, "to make." It reads literally, "in the day of making." This combination of the singular with a preposition in construct with an infinitive98 makes this combination a "temporal conjunction,"99 which serves as a "general introduction of time."100

Genesis 2:4b reads literally, "in [the] day of the Lord God making the earth and heaven. Proper English calls for the literal "in [the] day of," which is syntactically a temporal conjunction that serves as a general introduction of time, to be rendered with "when." This sentence then reads, "When the Lord God made...." This clear-cut case of an extended, non-literal use of yom in the creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 shows that the contrary usage of yom in Genesis 1, without any expected qualifier that marks it as a non-literal use, has a literal meaning. The term yom in Genesis 1 has no prepositions; it is not used in a construct relation and it has no syntactical indicator expected of an extended, non-literal meaning. Thus, in Genesis 1 yom can mean only a literal "day" of 24 hours.

In short, the semantic-syntactical usages of yom, "day," in Genesis 1 as compared with semantic-syntactical usages and linguistic connections of this term in other Old Testament passages where it has an extended meaning, does not allow it to mean a long period of time, an age, or the like. The Hebrew language, its grammar, syntax, linguistic structures as well as its semantic usage allows for only the literal meaning of "day" for the creation "days" of Genesis 1.