The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4

Journal of Creation ^ | Francis Humphrey, M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4

by Francis Humphrey

Some preliminary considerations

The question often arises as to the correct meaning of ‘day’ in the opening verses of Genesis. There are those who argue that the word signifies a long period of time (e.g. progressive creationists like Hugh Ross). Others contend that the passage in question (Genesis 1:1–2:4) is not meant to be an actual historical account of the creation but is rather a theological reflection on God’s creative power and His sovereignty over the created order (e.g. the ‘framework hypothesis’ of Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher et al.). In the latter case the text is seen as having no relevance in determining the sequence of events at the time of origins.

The traditional view has been that the text is meant to communicate a straightforward account of God’s creation of the universe. The account is, therefore, of six 24-hour days of creative acts followed by a seventh 24-hour day of divine rest.

Theological reflection approach

Regarding this approach it is important to note that it is not really a question of Hebrew textual exegesis but rather...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

Thought you two might be interested.

All the best—GGG

[mvpel]

[Natural Law]

What do you suggest we use for the mass of the sun in this time dilation formula for the period of time before the sun was created?

[count-your-change]

Yes, and thanks. I’ll be getting back soon, perhaps over day the next or so. Cheers

[RachelFaith]

The problem is NOT with this word in Genesis.

The problem is the two witnesses to this passage in Exodus:

Exodus 31:12 says that God commanded Moses to say to the children of Israel:

Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed (Exodus 31:15–17).

And then AGAIN in Exodus 20:11, which is the basis of the Fourth Commandment:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Say what you wish about the word used in Genesis, you may or may not have a point... but then you are stuck with the problems in Exodus, because it says without any ambiguity SIX LITERAL DAYS... and it does so twice.

Now factor in that the Same MAN wrote both books at the same time... and you just can’t HAVE any other conclusion. Even if you discount any sort of Holy Spirit in the writing... Moses used the words he used for both books, written at the same time and they are witness to one another.

Six 24 hour days. Anything else, any other attempt at rereading the meaning is intellectual masturbation.

[King David]

For millenia, there have been opposing forces of religion and science, with no apparent resolution to their viewpoints. One says creation took six “days”. The other says the earth was created over millions of years. Is there a way to reconcile BOTH viewpoints—thus validating that scripture is true?

Theological creationists would not argue that the Father creates anything “flawed”. His work is perfect, agreed? With this as the premise, how does one explain Gen. 1:2, where it says the earth was void (or, “vacant”)? In fact, the actual Hebrew rendering says that the earth BECAME “vacant” or “void”. Some event would have caused His previously perfect creation to be destroyed.

Moses does not make it clear how long a period of time there could be between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but it most certainly could equate to a long period of time, even millions of years (thus accepting the existence of pre-historic earth, including dinosaurs, etc. long before man came on the scene).

This may seem like heresy at first, but how can one call the first three “days” in Genesis 24-hour days...when the SUN and MOON weren’t even created yet? These events—that identify our 24-hour day didn’t happen until v. 16, or the 4th “day” of creation. It is entirely logical that the first three “days” were of some unknown period of time.

From THIS point forward, the days would of course be 24 hours long. But the three “days” that preceded it could be any length of time necessary to achieve all of creation. To the Father, a day is as a 1000 years, and a 1000 years is as a day (Peter). This is literal, not a metaphor.

We are living in a time when ALL truth will be revealed. Is this concept really that hard to understand? While this might shake certain theological views to its core, if those faiths truly believe in the Bible, then what...does...it...really...say?

Or, is it okay to just pretend that the first three days of creation MUST have been 24 hours...because you “want” them to be? Is that how we’re supposed to understand scripture? To make IT adhere to our own indoctrination instead of reading it and believing what it actually SAYS?

Science and religion can agree on both premises. The earth took millons of years to become what it is today. Fact. AND the earth took six “days” to create. Also a fact. The truth is, all one has to do is believe what is actually written to realize that the 6 “days” of creation may agree with the millions of years.

Food for thought.

[King David]

Strong words my dear.

But your argument about the six days shall you work, etc. is made long AFTER man appeared on earth. So, of course THESE days would be describing 6 or 7 24-hour days.

But Gen. 1:1 does not say that “In the beginning God made the sun and moon”...does it?

So how could these early verses of Genesis been describing 24-hour time periods? Hhhmmm?

[Eva]

God is eternal, unlimited by time.

[King David]

We aren’t talking about Him. We’re talking about His creation.

Of course, He is “eternal” and unlimited by time. This has nothing to do with what He inspired Moses to write in Gen. 1:1, etc.

Being “eternal” does not rebut the fact that millions of years could have happened between vs. 1 and 2. Nor does it change the fact that we didn’t have the sun or moon in the first three “days” of creation, does it?

[Iscool]

This may seem like heresy at first, but how can one call the first three “days” in Genesis 24-hour days...when the SUN and MOON weren’t even created yet? These events—that identify our 24-hour day didn’t happen until v. 16, or the 4th “day” of creation. It is entirely logical that the first three “days” were of some unknown period of time.

That wouldn't matter...There was no one to discern the difference between night and day...

What matters is God said he created the earth and all else AS WE KNOW IT in 6 definable days as explained in Exodus...

I see the 'gap' between verses 1 and 2...The rest falls into the creation calender of 6 days...

And why is this important??? Because there is so much prophecy built on the knowledge of that 6 day creation week...

[Dartoid]

So is The Almighty unable to create with the appearance of age?

The keeping of time based on the rotation of the earth around the sun is for man since we are finite. Time is finite but God is not. The same word for day is used in all seven days of creation. Prior to the fall of Lucifer and recreation the universe was provided light from the glory of God. When the new earth and new heaven come to pass, there will again be no sun and the light will again be provided by the glory of God.

I do believe in the Gap “fact” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 but not to support a merging of evolution and creationism. I believe that is when Lucifers fall happened.

Just my thoughts

[King David]

Yes, it matters a great deal.

People everywhere are searching for the truth, just just SOME of the truth of scripture. What you have stated as your belief is just that—YOUR belief.

What I stated, on the other hand, is grounded in the exact words in Genesis. You say that the earth was created in 6 definable days, even though you recognize that the sun didn’t exist until day 4.

Are you sure you aren’t reading more into these verses than what it actualy says?

[GodGunsGuts]

I COMPLETELY agree with you. Thank you, oh Rachel of faith :o)

[Uri’el-2012]

It is refreshing to read someone so erudite who does not have the temerity
to explain to Elohim that His WORD is in error concerning the creation of
the time-space continuum in which we have been placed and are permitted
to live.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[King David]

Me too. But, you’ll notice I never said anything about “evolution”. This is a common error when discussing this subject.

Check my earlier posts. No evolution—your mind put that word there. I completely believe in ONLY creation, but I’m opening the door for scientific thought to consider that creation could fit within THEIR framework (as well as ours).

By the way, for what it’s worth, the name “Lucifer” is not found anywhere in the original scripture. When translations began to appear, the name was improperly inserted when the original Hebrew simply says “son of dawn” (Isa. 14:12)... See how easy it is to misunderstand what is written if we only look at one translation?

[Iscool]

Are you sure you aren’t reading more into these verses than what it actualy says?

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying...Are you saying the time frame as we know it for creation was like 3 days plus a few billion years??

[King David]

It’s perfectly fine to agree with Rachel... but do her thoughts agree with scripture?

Or, does she agree with YOUR beliefs in spite of evidence that conventional wisdom might be wrong?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Theological creationists would not argue that the Father creates anything “flawed”. His work is perfect, agreed? With this as the premise, how does one explain Gen. 1:2, where it says the earth was void (or, “vacant”)? In fact, the actual Hebrew rendering says that the earth BECAME “vacant” or “void”. Some event would have caused His previously perfect creation to be destroyed.

These are not very good arguments for your position, for two reasons:

1) The idea that that earth was "without form" and "void" does not necessarily suggest "flawed." It merely suggests that it existed in an unformed state incapable of sustaining the life God was to subsequently put upon it. As you said, theological creationists wouldn't argue that the Father creates anything "flawed" - and so it is here. He created something unformed so that He could programmatically fill it with life and order of His own devising. The fact of an unordered void to begin with was as much a part of God's perfect plan for creation as was the subsequent ordering and filling.

2) The argument that the earth "became" vacant or void is unsupported by the actual Hebrew. The tense of hayah is the Qal perfect, which simply states its present condition. Any suggestion that the verb *intends* something along the line of saying the earth "became" anything needs to be found in the surrounding context - which it is not.