An Overview of Day-Age's Errors (what does the word "day" mean in Genesis?)

ICR ^ | March 2009 | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

An Overview of Day-Age's Errors

by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

Many Bible scholars today are buying into the day-age theory of origins. They seem to believe that their biblical views must conform to their mental image of how the world functions today and must be confirmed by members of the non-Christian world, whose minds are darkened (Ephesians 4:17-19).

The basis of the day-age interpretation of long ages rests on a flawed understanding of the use of the word yom in Genesis 1 and 2. Here, I will discuss briefly the theory's five main errors...

[OneVike]

Look at the record for fossil recognition and you will find it is woefully inadequate to explain their true age.

We could get in a discussion about biology, archeology and forensics, but the article explicitly takes on language and the meaning of what the Bible truly says.

[Natural Law]

"The Hebrew word for day as I said earlier is yom...

You will also find that the ancient Hebrew measurement system, whether linear, volumetric, or time was almost exactly the same as the Babylonian system and that "day" did not mean a 24 hour period, it meant the time from the onset of darkness until the next onset of darkness. Since the ancient Hebrew language lacked the basic capability to describe non-linearities or abstract concepts like the space time continuum one can't take things too literally.

[Natural Law]

"Some believe Moses wrote Genesis"....."He could have told Moses"....."I believe"....

These are reasons to not try to attempt to prove matters of faith with science or assign special credibility to scientists who happen to agree with you.

[BlueDragon]

As you wish...

I realize you don't have time to give language instruction.

At some later time, perhaps you might investigate the author's claims more thoroughly (if you haven't done so already).

If you so desired, you may be able to refute him, backing the effort using the recognized methodologies of scholarly criticism.

Concerning textual criticisms, it is necessary for there to be agreement on which exact (extant?) texts are being used.

More from the link, from the author concerning this point:

"So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists."

How much the exact differences in opinion you and the author have lay at the feet of the "three commentaters" I can only glean somewhat second-hand, from the author's own commentary. I'm not able to evaluate the texts directly, myself. Yet I wonder...might your here stated disagreement be arising from being "on the same page", but from slightly differing books?

Please, let me be clear. I'm not saying here, that you owe me a reply or explanation explicitly spelling it all out. Such a work might better be published in the academic world, rather than be employed on a public internet forum.

Yet if you wish to do such rebuttal (of the linked source material) at a later time, it would best be done by first finding out precisely what it is that is in dispute.

[OneVike]

Since the ancient Hebrew language lacked the basic capability to describe non-linearities or abstract concepts like the space time continuum one can't take things too literally.

All one has to do is compare like language in the Bible to like language in other parts of Scripture. You will find a pattern that is consistent and unbroken. So when you look at the way the Hebrew words are used in their context compared to other situations with different context you will find that the author was very consistent in his presentation of words.

So I absolutely reject your statement that the Hebrew language makes it impossible to take the Bible as literal.

Not to mention the fact that any other interpretation of days leaves one to say man did not die as a result of his sin. Now if you want to get into a theological discussion about Adam selling us to death for his sin that's another matter all together.

Compare the way the language flows as if a poet wrote it. It is not that difficult if you really wanted to learn it.

[OneVike]

Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists."

I will look into the others but as far as the Kabbalists, Nachmanides is concerned, the top Rabbinic scholars of today dismiss him and Kabbalism (and I mean the traditional Kabbalism, not the crap Madonna is into). It is a type of Gnosticism, only in the Jewish circles. They claim you need special knowledge that only God can give you. If you don't have that special knowledge you cannot interpret the Scriptures properly.

Another words he has been branded a heretic. If the other two are of similar schooling then this discussion is over, because the study of Kabbalism is a study of special knowledge and feelings that first made its way into the teaching of a discredited Rabbi of the 1st century A.D.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[DrewsMum]

Well, if you don’t believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God then this conversation is moot.

But as already posted, many believe Moses wrote it and received the revelation on Mt. Sinai...what convinces me is because it also says that the Lord showed him His “hinder parts”...what makes the most sense is that it was referring to that which came before him (Moses) unless of course one thinks that God literally showed him his butt...

like I said...not rocket science like many freepers try to turn it into. God didn’t send us his word so that only the “most intelligent” among us could understand...the Bible actually talks about some who are “ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of truth”

To answer your question: I believe that God wrote Genesis through man. (per the Bible...men wrote the word of God as they were moved on my the Holy Ghost). Personally, I believe that man was Moses and it happened on Sinai...I can not prove that and I could be wrong there. I do not know the “dialect” the Lord used when he spoke to Moses.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Bible was THE inspired word of God. The writing process for the constitution was a far cry from the way the Bible was written. Now, when it was translated by King James I (or the men he commissioned to translate it..)there were many debates about what the closest interpretations and translations were. Much prayer was put into it along with much intellect. Unlike the constitution, the Bible is not open for change.

[OneVike]

God didn’t send us his word so that only the “most intelligent” among us could understand...the Bible actually talks about some who are “ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of truth”

I know you did not use that phrase to insult anyone, but I must defend the apologists who constantly defend the faith in that they are blessed by God in their ability too dig deep and refute the heretics who come to steal the joy of the less gifted.

Paul was the first apologist and he refuted those who had more education and understanding of the Scriptures then the common man who was usually uneducated. Considering 85% of the Roman population were slaves it only makes sense that most were not educated enough to refute the heretics who followed the apostles around to confuse the people.

I like you do not need to understand Hebrew or Greek to believe, I believed before God gifted me with the desire to refute the wolves in sheep's clothing. However that gift comes with the need inside me to know more so that I can defend the faith. Call it what you will, but it comes from God.

Sometimes I wish I did not know as much or that I was not attracted to the need to know more. I constantly worry about being correct because those who know more will be held to a higher standard then those who are happy to get into the pearly gates by the skin of their teeth. Or as Paul said "As a field that survived the fire. All their works are burned but the field survived."

Remember Hitler, Stalin, and men like the Caesars could only kill the body. But it was men like Joseph Smith, and the Gnostics who have dammed many souls to eternal separation from God with their heretical teachings.

[BlueDragon]

Yes, I knew you would jump all over the mention of Nachmanides with both feet. I can't say I necessarily blame you. I think I do understand.

"If the other two are of similar schooling then this discussion is over, because..."

Ok. You haven't even read yet, what it is you are so vigorously denying?

Try reading through the various things Schroeder has to offer. Go so far as to read a few of his books, too. Then decide if he is merely "smoking wacky weed" (is that how you put it?).

I did not see, previous to posting my last reply to you, your additional reply in which you mentioned possibly using your FR homepage as a location for you to publish a rebuttal. That might be a tedious, onerous undertaking, to "do it right". Please, don't feel obligated, unless that is indeed part of your own calling.

Presently, I have been reading textual, and "form" criticisms of the New Testament. I'll content myself with reading, for the most part...

[1forall]

These are reasons to not try to attempt to prove matters of faith with science or assign special credibility to scientists who happen to agree with you.

Are you saying we cannot look to natural laws or scientific theory to help prove the existence of God or the truthfulness of Scripture?

Conversely, isn't it a matter of faith to accept what many say is "evidence" for Darwinism?

[Natural Law]

"Are you saying we cannot look to natural laws or scientific theory to help prove the existence of God or the truthfulness of Scripture?"

I happen to believe in Theistic Evolution, meaning that God created and used the science and processed He later used to introduce life and ultimately man into a dynamic universe. I just find it completely disingenuous for some here to spend endless hours railing against science and scientists until one is found who agrees with them.

[OneVike]

I happen to believe in Theistic Evolution

So you disagree with the Bible and especially Paul when he wrote to the Romans,

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- Romans 5:12 NKJV

Now to understand sin you need to understand that anything that falls short of the perfection of God is sin.

So with that, in order for you to believe in theistic evolution you must agree that sin did not enter the world when Adam sinned, but before. After all, for evolution of any kind to take place you need death, destruction, and decay.

So if all that entered into the world before Adam sinned, then why did we need God to assume a mans body to die on the cross for our sins? And also then, Paul did not know what he was talking about when he wrote the above statement to the Roman believers. Right?

See all this is academic if you do not believe the basic reason for the need of Christ shedding his blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. But then again if we were not sold into slavery of sin by Adams fall, then why argue the silly points of the what the Hebrew word for day meant.

Think real hard about what you say, for this is not a simple matter of disagreement of a word. This is the basics of Christianity.With out Adam sinning there would have been no death and no decay and no destruction. If no death then how does evolution take place?

This is an easy argument for a non believer, but for a believer you need to eliminate the need for Christ. Non believers already do not believe they need Christ so they can come up with as many ideas as they want to justify their belief in evolution. But you being a believer can not.

I say this as a man of the word, you need to rectify this with God, not me or other men. Ultimately it does come down to faith. What is faith? Lets see what the writer of the letter to the Hebrews say about faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.(Hebrews 11:1-3 NKJV)

Another words we cannot take the things we see, skeletal remains, rocks, and other archeological materials to make sense of what God has made. Ultimately we need faith.

Natural Law? Do you have faith in God? Do you have faith that He became man and died upon the cross for your sins? Do have faith that your God is a big God who can do anything? Even create new laws that seem unnatural to men? Laws that enable Him to create the heavens and the earth and all that dwell upon it in six days? Yes, I am asking you, Natural Law. How strong is your faith in God?

Is it strong enough to go against what this world wants you to believe? Men better then you and I had that kind of faith. Their faith moved kingdoms and even brought the dead back to life when all human science says it is impossible. Their faith turned the Roman Empire into a Christian empire in less then 300 years.

You don't have to agree with me because I have a may or may not have a better argument then others on the meaning of certain Hebrew words and contexts of those words. You only need to believe because your faith is stronger then that of men's science.

[Natural Law]

"So you disagree with the Bible..."

My beliefs are fully in line with the positions of the Vatican on this subject. I am sure that they have a pretty good grasp on what the bible says and means since they were the editors.

[CottShop]

“Not realizing that the big bang theory has no “edge” to its matter, Schroeder imagines such an edge and appears to believe that clocks near such an edge run slow compared to clocks on Earth. He does not appear to realize that standard big bang theory has all its clocks running at the same rate everywhere. Anyhow, he imagines that clocks at the edge of the universe would register only days, while clocks here would register billions of years. This is the exact opposite of how standard general relativity says clocks in a cosmos with an edge actually would behave, according to Dr. Russell Humphreys’ book Starlight and Time. Pages 103–104, 128, and 132 of the book point out this discrepancy in Schroeder’s ideas of several years ago. It is not clear if Dr. Schroeder has substantially modified his views since that time.

Even if Dr. Schroeder’s scientific view (that clocks far away tick slowly) were correct, they still would run aground on an important biblical question: where does God measure time? Did the days He mentioned in Genesis elapse at the edge of the universe, or did they elapse on Earth? The Bible teaches that the universe runs on Earth time, which involves (approximately) 24-hour, and very regular, rotations of the Earth. The Bible teaches a young Earth, but Schroeder’s theory does not.

Finally, Dr. Schroeder’s numbers have not kept up-to-date with the latest scientific fashion. According to his theory, to get 6 days you need a 16 or 17 billion-year-old universe. This no longer fits the prevailing (ever-changing) “accepted” age of the universe, which now is about 13 billion years. If we use his “back of the envelope” method of finding out the equivalent of creation days to observed years, we get 16.4 billion years. But the universe is now said to be about 13 billion years old. Thus we find that we are in day 4.8 instead of 5.5! Creation Week is still going on, man has not been created and God has not rested yet!”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4356news8-2-2000.asp

Moreover, Dr. Schroeder’s arbitrary numbers are not consistent with each other. He chooses to divide the 15 billion years by the degree of expansion of the universe, which he defines as a million million (1,000,000,000,000), and then multiplying that by 365 for the number of days in a year. He states that the answer is approximately 6, proving his theory. However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.

Dr. Schroeder continues by saying that because we are in the “sixth day” of creation, the Sabbath Day, the seventh day of rest, has not yet occurred. However, Genesis 2:1–2 clearly states that God “ended his work”, “he rested”, and “he blessed it and sanctified it because in it he rested.” All of these statements are made in the past tense. How could this be if we are still in the sixth day as Dr. Schroeder claims?

Dr. Schroeder also states that the basic Hebrew root word for “evening” is “chaos” and the basic Hebrew root word for “morning” is “order.” He cites no Hebrew scholar supporting his view, which appears to many scholars to be without foundation. The Hebrew word for “evening” is (’ereb); it appears to have no relation to the word most scholars would expect for “chaos” (tohu). Similarly, the word for “morning” (boqer) has no discernible connection to the word we would expect for “order” (seder). Since Dr. Schroeder offers no details supporting his alleged Hebrew word relationships, readers should not take him seriously on this point. (In any case, even if there were a root word relationship, there are logical fallacies and dangers involved in using word roots to interpret the Bible, which have led people astray on many issues. For a study of the Hebrew word tohu, see The alleged biblical evidence for a gap.)

Proceeding with this argument nonetheless, Dr. Schroeder asserts that this shows the universe started with the chaos of the big bang and was later ordered by God. Does this then mean that each “day” started with chaos and ended with order? Did things go through a six “day” cycle of chaos-to-order-to-chaos-to-order?

In Dr. Schroeder’s creation scenario, the sun was actually created on Day Two. However, since the atmosphere was merely translucent, it could not be visibly discerned from the earth until the atmosphere became transparent on Day Four. In contrast, Genesis 1:14–19 clearly states that the sun and moon were made on Day Four and placed in the firmament. This is another standard claim of the old “day-age” theory, a claim which evaporates upon examination of the passages involved. For example, the biblical account does not use the Hebrew word for “appear” to say the sun and moon “appeared” on the fourth day. Instead, Genesis 1:16 says he “made” them then.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

[CottShop]

Dr. Davis Young, former geology professor at Calvin College, recognized this dilemma and abandoned the “day-age” theory. Here is part of his explanation as to why he discarded it:

The biblical text, for example, has vegetation appearing on the third day and animals on the fifth day. Geology, however, had long realized that invertebrate animals were swarming in the seas long before vegetation gained a foothold on the land ... . Worse yet, the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth.8

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/whats-wrong-with-progressive-creation

For more articles on 6 days:

Days of Creation:

Get Answers: Genesis—How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account?

Framework Hypothesis:

What is the Framework Hypothesis? Is it Biblical?
A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2)
A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2)
A critique of the literary framework view of the days of Creation (Technical, PDF, by Andrew Kulikovsky)

Gap Theory:

How is the Gap Theory refuted by the Bible?
What About the Gap & Ruin-Reconstruction Theories? (from The New Answers Book)
Can evolution’s long ages be squeezed into Genesis?
Gap Theory—An Idea with Holes?
The Gap Theory—Part A
The Gap Theory—Part B
What does “Replenish the Earth” mean?
Genesis unbound (critique of John Sailhamer’s sophistic version of the gap theory)
Replenishing the Earth (ICR Back to Genesis article)

Progressive Creationism:

Hugh Ross and “progressive creationism”: why is it wrong to add billions of years to the Bible?
Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years? (from The New Answers Book)
What’s wrong with progressive creation? (from War of the Worldviews)
What’s wrong with Progressive Creationism?
The Dubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross (Semi-Technical)
Cosmic breakthrough
Hugh Ross Exposé (Refutation of his article on the Christian Leadership Ministry website)

Gerald Schroeder and his new variation on the “Day-Age” theory:

Part 1
Part 2

Did God rest on the seventh day for a literal 24 hour day, or for millions of years?:

Is the Seventh Day an Eternal Rest?

Theistic Evolution:

Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to believe?
10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution
Feedback: Young Is the New Old
“A child may see the folly of it”
Biblical problems for theistic evolution
The big picture
Bryan on theistic evolution
God and evolution: do they mix?
Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?
Theistic evolution: future shock
Theistic Evolution and the Future of Humans
Theistic evolution: what difference does it make?
What Should a Christian Think about Evolution?

Did God use evolution to create the world?:

Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution? (from The New Answers Book)
The Atheists Know . . . Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution
Did the Creator Use Evolution?
Evolution incompatible with Christianity
The god of an old Earth
Jacques Monod vs Theistic Evolution
Is evolution “anti-religion”?
The horse and the tractor—Why God and evolution don’t mix
Theistic Evolution and the Creation-Evolution Controversy (ICR Impact article)

How has theistic evolution harmed the faith of scientists who professed Christianity?:

From (theistic) evolution to creation (article about Prof. John Rendle-Short)

The Genesis Flood:

Global or Local
Get Answers: Flood—Does the Bible really claim that Noah’s Flood was global?

Links to above topics: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creation-compromises

[OneVike]

Yeah right, the Vatican also thought that the world was flat, and that Christs death on the cross was not enough. That's why the preach purgatory which is decidedly un-Biblical.

The Catholic Church has come a long way back to what Christ taught, but they still have a long ways to go. So please do not use the Catholic Church as a basis of your argument in any theological debate with me.

[DrewsMum]

“I know you did not use that phrase to insult anyone”

No. I did not. It is the Word of God, I was just quoting. And the FReepers I was referring to are not even on this thread.

And yes, I agree that there are people who have different gifts...and the gift of knowledge is one of them. But one has to know the difference. Someone who is SOOOOOO smart that they can’t even have faith in the word of God, is too smart for me.

I do apologize to anyone if I came across as offensive. I was in a hurry and that was not my intention.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

Good finds both, CottShop. I had no idea you were up on this stuff too! I’m reading a book by Alex Williams and John Hartnett that touches on these subjects. It is entitled, “Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered.” Have you read it? What I really appreciate about this book is that it doesn’t just destroy the evo-atheist Big Bang model, but it also uses scripture as a guide to help steer their new cosmology in the right direction. And since you are obviously up on this stuff, you are probably already aware that the new Christian cosmologies are making very accurate predictions :o)