Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The ‘days’ of Genesis one

What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1? A word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance, the English word ‘day’ can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example, consider the following sentence: ‘Back in my father’s day, it took ten days to drive across the Australian Outback during the day.’ Here the first occurrence of ‘day’ means ‘time’ in a general sense. The second ‘day,’ where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the third refers to the daylight period of the 24-hour period. The point is that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.

To understand the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for ‘day,’ yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:

· A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.

· A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading ‘day as defined by evening and morning.’

· A number, and the phrase ‘evening and morning,’ are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

· Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10

· Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’11 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

· In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word ‘night.’ Outside of Genesis 1, ‘night’ is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word ‘light’ with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

· The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. ‘in those days.’14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.

· There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

‘ … so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’16

In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said:
‘ … if, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.’17

Conclusion

If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by outside ideas, then the word for ‘day’ in Genesis 1—which is qualified by a number, the phrase ‘evening and morning,’ and for day one the words ‘light and darkness’—obviously means an ordinary day (about 24 hours).

In Martin Luther’s day, some of the church fathers were saying that God created everything in only one day, or in an instant. Martin Luther wrote:

‘When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.’18
Similarly, John Calvin stated: ‘ … albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years … God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.’19

Luther and Calvin were the backbone of the Protestant Reformation that called the Church back to Scripture—Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Both of these men were adamant that Genesis 1 taught six ordinary days of creation—only thousands of years ago.

© Copyright 2007 Answers in Genesis

5 comments:

Wildcat said...

Tuesday 27 November 2007 10:06 AM

Now this is an interesting one....
and I am starting to understand why more people are turning to atheism...
We cannot make assumptions such as this without understanding science, and while science strives to be neutral, religious fundamentalists can only see with blinkers...

Consider that light from the Andromeda Nebula takes 2 000 000 (million) years to reach us, how do you reconcile this with you 24 hour day theory?
Radioactive decay in rocks prove that they have remained this way for millions of years, how do you reconcile this with your theory?

It is articles such as yours that give the scientific community ammunition against God and creation. And it is dangerous to take everything in the Bible literally in modern language.....

Paula said...

Tuesday 27 November 2007 11:14 AM

Wildcat,

Most experts seem to agree that one supernova every 25 years in a galaxy our size is within reason. Therefore, if our galaxy is in excess of 100,000 years old, and the remnants last an average of 55,000 years, there should be 55,000 years divided by 25 supernova/year=2,200 supernova remnants out there. If we can only detect 1/2 of those remnants, there should still be 1,100 detectable. However, if our galaxy is only 10,000 years old, the number of second stage supernova remnants actually detected is very revealing as to the true age of our galaxy. Only around 200 have been found.

This is one more piece of evidence which indicates that the earth and the universe are far younger than the assumptions of evolution allow. Indeed, the vast majority of dating methods indicate a relatively young earth.

If the universe was really billions of years old, there are 7000 missing SuperNova Remnant (SNR's) in our galaxy.

Not only that, but the predictions for the Milky Way’s satellite galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud are also consistent with a young universe. Theory predicts 340 observable SNRs if the LMC were billions of years old, and 24 if it were 7000 years old. The number of actually observed SNRs in the Large Magellanic Cloud is 29.

Supernovas declare His mighty power, but are still only finite expressions. The low number of their remnants is a pointer to God’s recent creation of the heavens and earth.

Paula said...

Tuesday 27 November 2007 11:38 AM

Wildcat,

Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14 method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which is seen as a constant. Every living thing takes in and expels Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is maintained. When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended, and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the “half-life.” The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the specimen. Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific, there are several serious problems.

The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.

Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were an example of an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. Isn’t it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth’s history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?

Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.

Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to “old-age” proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14’s half-life is around 5,630 years 3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.

This leads to yet another inherent problem in the use of radiometric dating which would seem virtually insurmountable, and is caused by the presence of environmental Carbon 14 itself, ironically, the phenomenon scientists exploit in the determination of date of origin. Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to preclude contamination that seriously affects the results of the measurement. The levels of Carbon 14 in any “old” artifact are extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the specimen. Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is. This effect cannot be overstated in regard to the estimates of age—a less than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen, owing to the “constant” of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times the actual age. Imagine the effect on science if an artifact dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are staggering.

The foregoing is but a few examples of the problems with Carbon 14; many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years, and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th. The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited. On the other hand, there is an obvious dichotomy in these problems and the lack of common knowledge regarding them; it would seem that there should be some explanation why the vast majority of society is so unaware of the spurious nature of the science behind radiocarbon dating. That is, since science is ostensibly clinical and without emotion, the most likely cause of the dearth of knowledge of the limitations, fallacies, and vulnerabilities in this method is man himself—a manifestation of his own biases and predilections.

Wildcat said...

Tuesday 27 November 2007 2:49 PM

Sjoe! Quite a lot of reading for me, thanks.
I will thus agree to disagree with you and feel sad that you cannot answer in your own words, rather choosing to copy & paste...

I do also hope that you will do your OWN research and think carfully before you just accept anything fed to you, you'd really be doing yourself an injustice...

Paula said...

Tuesday 27 November 2007 3:56 PM

Wildcat,

Jesus Christ is my light. He is guiding me through His Word.

The meaning of "research is 'to investigate thoroughly' and to gather information. So yes, I did my OWN research. And no, I don’t accept anything fed to me :). Don’t worry, I compare every thing to the Word of God.

Thank you for caring and God Bless:)