Origins 21(1):5-38 (1994).
Related page — | REACTION
|
|
IN MEMORIAM This article is another excellent contribution by
Dr. Gerhard Hasel, who for many years served as an editorial consultant to
Origins. Dr. Hasel lost his life in a traffic accident the day
before he was to make a public presentation of this article. It thus
represents one of his last — if not his final — intellectual contributions
to our understanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, he did not have a chance
to review the final copy. Our appreciation goes to Michael Hasel for his
assistance. Warren H. Johns offered constructive criticism from a
bibliographic viewpoint. |
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.
II. METHODOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AND THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
A knowledge of some aspects in the history of interpretation of the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 may prove to be helpful from the perspective of methodology for interpretation. Historical information assists the modern interpreter to recognize that it is incorrect to suggest that only since the publication of Charles Darwin's epochal work, On the Origin of Species (1859), the Genesis creation "days" were transposed into non-literal periods of time. Earlier extra-biblical considerations led interpreters to depart from the literal meaning of creation "days."
1. 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,4 is credited with being the first to understand
the creation "days" in an allegorical and non-literal
manner.5
Augustine (A.D. 354 - 430), the most
famous of the Latin Fathers, followed Origen in arguing that the creation "days"
are to be understood allegorically, rather than literally.6 Augustine
is understood to teach that God created the world in a single flash of a
moment.
At this point it seems appropriate to reflect on
some methodological matters. Neither Augustine nor Origen had any evolutionary
concept in mind. They took the creation "days" as non-literal, standing for
something else, because it was philosophically mandatory to assign to God
creation activity which was unrelated to human time. Since the "days" of
creation are related to God, it was argued, these "days" have to be
representative of philosophical notions associated with God taken from their
philosophical perspectives.
In Greek philosophy God is
timeless. Since the creation "days" are part of divine activity, it was assumed
that they also should be understood in a timeless sense. The thinking of Origen
and Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy, not by scientific
speculations, which led to a reinterpretation of the creation
"days."
What this approach has in common with modern
attempts, which also take the creation "days" to mean something other than what
the face value of the terminology seems to suggest, is that both are based on
influences from outside the biblical text itself. Medieval theologians, who took
the creation "days" to be non-literal, based it on non-biblical, pagan
philosophical modes of thinking.
Today there is another
influence from outside the biblical text that leads interpreters to change what
seems to be the plain meaning of "days." At present it is a naturalistically
based scientific hypothesis, the modern theory of evolution, which provides the
impetus for such changes.
The thinking of medieval
Catholic theologians was influenced by the Alexandrian allegorical method of
interpretation. The fourfold sense of Scripture was adopted in medieval
times7 and is still supported in current official Roman
Catholicism.8 The three non-literal meanings of the fourfold sense of
Scripture (i.e., allegory, anagogy, tropology) carried the day and held primary
importance for over a millennium in Christendom, providing the hermeneutical
means for the reinterpretation of the literal sense of the creation "days."
2. Reformation Understanding of Creation "Days"
The sixteenth-century Reformers agreed that the
fourfold sense of Scripture compromised the literal sense of the Bible, making
its authority for faith and life null and void. They insisted that the single,
true sense of Scripture is the literal sense, the plain meaning of the
text.
One of the major achievements of the Protestant
Reformation is the return to Scripture. This meant that Scripture is in no need
of an external key for interpretation — whether that key be the Pope, the church
councils, philosophy, or any other human authority. Scripture's clarity and
perspicuity became the norm of the day; its reading from within its own context
was paramount. External meaning must not be superimposed on it, as had been the
practice under medieval Catholicism. The Bible was to be read in its literal and
grammatical sense.9
Martin Luther, accordingly,
argued for the literal interpretation of the creation account: "We assert that
Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that
the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words
read."10 The other Reformers understood the creation "days" in the
same way.
This literal and grammatical interpretation,
known in the history of hermeneutics as the historical-grammatical method, was
the norm for biblical interpretation more or less into the nineteenth
century.11
3. Changes Under the Influence of Modernism
As the concept of long time periods made its way into the
understanding of Earth';s origins in the wake of the publications of James
Hutton (1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875), some Christian concordist
interpreters started to reinterpret the Genesis "days" of creation in a
non-literal manner. The impetus for this was not found in the Bible itself but
in the new world view which was being developed on the basis of
uniformitarianism and its concomitant understanding of origins which demanded
long periods of time.
The understanding of the creation
"days" as "days of restoration,"12 "days of revelation,"13
aside from taking a "day" for an "age" ("day-age" theory) or an
epoch/era14 goes back to this time and the changes in time frames
required by the new geology. The approach of a non-literal reinterpretation of
"days" was typical of concordists who had accepted long ages for the origin of
Earth.15 In view of these developments, it is unavoidable to conclude
that external influences exerted by a new understanding of geological ages
became the catalyst for the reinterpretation of the "days" of creation.
4. Recent Changes in Interpretation Among Broad Concordists
Broad concordists of the last ten years are increasingly
attempting to interpret the "days" in the Genesis creation account in
non-literal ways, in order to bring about harmony between the long ages called
for by the evolutionary theory and the time implications of the biblical record
of divine creation in Genesis 1.
It is an acknowledged
fact that the long and checkered history of the relation between science and
Scripture has had an impact on the present understanding of the
Bible.16 The shift from the Ptolemaic world view to the Copernican
one is probably the most celebrated example.17
The non-Christian Ptolemaic world view had been adopted by Christian medieval
theologians both as the correct Christian and biblical view of Earth. Earth was
conceived as the center of the solar system, and often of the universe. It
became a first-class dilemma when the heliocentric Copernican world view became
prominent and seemingly irrefutable.
From a methodological
point of view the interpretational model at work by the scientist as interpreter
of data observed in nature will predetermine to a large degree the outcome of
the enterprise itself, as well as the meaning of data derived from non-natural
sources, including the Bible. It is generally recognized that "scientific
theories do affect biblical interpretation at least to the extent that they
become the occasion for reassessing the interpretation of a few passages
(Genesis 1-2; 6-8)."18 The decisive question which emerges is whether
the reassessment becomes a superimposition of a meaning on the biblical text on
the part of concordists and others — a meaning which is alien to the meaning
found in Scripture within its own context.
At least two
major options seem to present themselves: 1) A reassessment on the basis of
"scientific" conclusions could lead to an interpretation of biblical texts which
is permitted within the framework of the context and intention of the totality
of Scripture. In such a case the reassessment does not do violence to the
internal norms of cohesion and unity of Scripture. 2) The reassessment of a
biblical text could likewise lead to a conclusion regarding the specific meaning
of a given biblical text or a biblical passage which does not agree with what a
current scientific hypothesis holds. For those who accept full biblical
authority this should lead to a reassessment of the conclusion(s) drawn from the
interpretation of data in nature by the scientist. The latter, in turn, may
affect the scientific theory, or science broadly perceived, "at the very least
by leading us to reassess whether all the conclusions drawn from a scientific
theory are warranted, or in some cases to ask whether the theory as a whole is
suspect."19
5. The Inherent Authority of Scripture
Some have taken the stance that a scientific theory, by
its very nature and the breadth of its acceptance, has priority over
Scripture.20 It is far beyond the confines of this paper to unfold
the complexity of this question. Suffice it to say that if Scripture is
understood to be the result of divine revelation and written under inspiration,
it would have a dimension of authority not found in the so-called book of
nature. Based on that higher dimension of authority, Scripture can assist in
interpretation of the book of nature, providing a more comprehensive model of
interpretation than might be expected from a purely naturalistic
model.
Scripture, if it is to maintain its own integrity,
can hardly be interpreted in such a way as to be accommodated time and again to
any kind of interpretation derived from science, sociology, history, etc.
Scripture, based on its own nature and authority, has its own integrity of
meaning and its inherent truth claims. They emerge ever more clearly on the
basis of a careful study of the Bible with sound methods of interpretation which
are in harmony with and rooted in the testimony of Scripture itself. This
implies that Scripture's; authority resides in itself; it is based in revelation
and grounded in inspiration.
The self-sufficiency of
Scripture of which we have spoken does not mean that any question raised from
other areas of investigation such as science, history, sociology and so on
cannot be discussed with reference to Scripture. But there is a vast difference
between asking new questions of Scripture and superimposing meaning on
Scripture.
III. FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CREATION "DAYS"
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 Hansjö Brä states:
The creation 'day' which is described to contain 'evening 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, yôm), 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 [lit.'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 1acks 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."
2 Peter 3:8
Broad concordists have also used 2
Peter 3:8, "... with the Lord one day is as a thousand years," to support the
day-age theory. It has been taken by some as a "biblical" mathematical
equivalent "one day equals a thousand years" literally. Others take the 1,000
years to mean a long period, an age, or the like. In that case it is argued that
"one day equals a long period of time" or "one day equals an
age."
It should be pointed out that those who invoke this
text face several major problems: 1) 2 Peter 3:8 has no creation context; 2) 2
Peter 3:8 has a comparative particle which is lacking in Genesis 1; 3) 2 Peter
3:8 is used non-literally when the 1,000 years are taken to mean an "age" or the
like; 4) 2 Peter 3:8 reveals that God is not limited to time or subject to it in
fulfilling His promises.
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.
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.
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 nonmetaphorical, 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
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 "semipoetic 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
neoevangelical scholars who are broad concordists.
Although we need not attempt to be exhaustive in citing the literary genre
categories which have been proposed for categorizing Genesis, some major
representative examples should be cited. Karl Barth, the father of neo-orthodox
theology, takes Genesis 1-2 as "saga"52 and, of course,
non-historical. S.H. Hooke, the leader of the myth-and-ritual school, says that
the Genesis creation account is a "cultic liturgy."53 Gordon Wenham,
a neo-evangelical scholar, believes it to be a "hymn."54 Walter
Brueggemann, a liberal non-concordist, suggests that it is a
"poem."55 Claus Westermann, a form-critic, calls it a
"narrative."56 John H. Stek, a broad concordist, names it a
"metaphorical narration."57 Gerhard von Rad, a tradition critic,
designates it as "doctrine."58 Others hold that it is a
"myth,"59 "parable,"60 "story," "theology,"61
"allegory," etc.
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. 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. 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.
2. Genesis 1: Literal or Figurative?
The question remains whether the creation account of
Genesis 1 is literal or figurative as a whole.65 Often Genesis 1 is
taken together as part of the larger unit of Genesis 1-11 to answer the question
of its nature, purpose and function.
It is an acknowledged
fact that these chapters at the beginning of the book of Genesis have
singularities, that is, unrepealed, one-time events, that have no immediate
analogy in present experience.
How does the modern
historian handle such singularities? The standard position of modern
historiography is based on the principle of analogy (cf. Ernst Troeltsch), that
is, the principle that nothing in past experience can be reckoned to be
historical except as it corresponds to present experience.66 This
principle is based on the notion of the basic uniformity of human experience and
historical events.67 The principle of analogy holds that the past is
understood only by borrowing from the present and applying it to the
past.
Based on the consistent application of this
uniformitarian basic to the principle of analogy, there is cause to deny the
historicity and facticity of most of Genesis 1-11, including the creation
account of Genesis 1.
Can and should the uniformitarian
principle of analogy reign as the supreme norm for understanding the
past?68 "A problem arises when the uniformity [of past and present]
is raised to a universal principle that makes some evidence inadmissible,"
writes a strong supporter of the principle of analogy and modernistic
historiography.69 This admission of the problem requires great
caution in the application of the uniformitarian principle of
analogy.
Human beings know of experiences in present
reality that are singular and without parallel in the past. For example,
twenty-five years ago the first human beings were walking on the moon. This had
never happened before. Another example is the use of atomic bombs for the
destruction of two Japanese cities in 1945. This type of destruction has never
happened before and stands unique to the present. Many other singularities could
be mentioned.
As there are singularities today that are
either man-made or part of another order, that is to say, there are real events
and situations that have no analogy in the past, so one can recite singularities
in the past which have no analogy at present. For example, R. G. Collingwood,
the famed British philosopher of history, noted that the ancient Romans engaged
in population control by exposing newborn infants to die. This is a singularity
which has no analogy at present in population control
attempts.70
With these limitations of the
principle of analogy in mind,71 it is not sound to reject the
creation account as non-historical and non-factual because we know of no analogy
at present. Genesis 1 contains singularities that may be perceived to be just as
real, historical and factual as the singularities of another kind in the present
or the past.
There are good reasons for maintaining that
Genesis 1 is a factual account of the origin of the livable world. This record
is accurate, authentic and historical.
3. Genesis 1 and Comparative Literature of the Past
From a purely comparative approach of the literary
structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the
terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account,
Genesis 1 is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis72 or
the Pentateuch for that matter.
Compared to the hymns in
the Bible, the creation account is not a hymn; compared to the parables in the
Bible, the creation account is not a parable; compared to the poetry in the
Bible, the creation account is not a poem; compared to cultic liturgy, the
creation account is not a cultic liturgy. Compared to various kinds of literary
forms, the creation account is not a metaphor, a story, a parable, poetry, or
the like.
One recent study of the literary form of Genesis
1-11 done on the basis of current comparative Near Eastern literature has
concluded that "we are dealing with the genera of historical narrative-prose,
interspersed with some lists, sources, sayings, and poetical
lines."73 This is a fairly good description of the content of Genesis
1.
A detailed study of the literary form of Genesis 1 has
concluded that we are dealing with the literary genre of
"prose-genealogy."74 Even Gunkel noted long ago that Genesis is
"prose." He noted also that it is "more artistic in its composition and has some
sort of rhythmical construction."75 The non-poetic nature of Genesis
1 shows that its intention is to take it in its plain sense as a straightforward
and accurate record of creative events.
Looking at the
information provided in Genesis 1 from a perspective of comparison with other
ancient Near Eastern literature, it must be concluded that "Genesis 1 has no
parallel anywhere in the ancient world outside the Bible."76 Genesis
1 is the most cohesive and profound record produced in the ancient world of
"how" and "when" and by "whom" and "in what manner" the world was made. There is
no parallel to it from the ancient world in any type of literature. There are
bits and pieces which have been compared from various cosmogonic myths and
speculations, but the biblical creation account as a unit stands unique in the
ancient world in its comprehensiveness and cohesiveness.77
4. The Literary Form of Genesis 1 Within Its Biblical Context
It would be helpful to analyze the literary form in
distinction to the "literary genre" of form criticism discussed
above.
John H. Stek suggests that the "literary type [of
Genesis 1], as far as present knowledge goes, is without strict parallel; it is
sui generis."78 It has already been noted that the
presentation and content of Genesis 1 as a whole is unparalleled in the ancient
world.79 Does this mean, however, that it is sui generis in
the sense that it should not be understood to be literal in its intention?
Surely as creation itself is unique so the creation account is of necessity
unique. But it is hardly sui generis in an exclusive literary sense which
will remove it from communication on a factual, accurate and historical
level.
Based on the relationship with the remainder of
Genesis (and the Bible as a whole), the creation account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3),
can be properly designated in its literary form. The creation account of Genesis
1 is a historical prose-record, written in rhythmic style, recording factually
and accurately "what" took place in the creation of "the heavens and the earth,"
depicting the time "when" it took place, describing the processes of "how" it
was done and identifying the divine Being "who" brought it forth. The result of
creation week was a perfect, "very good" world with an environment suited to the
utmost for created humanity to live in. This historical prose-record of creation
reports correctly in specific sequences the creation events within
chronological, sequential, and literal "days." These "days" inaugurate the
subsequent historical process of time ordered in weekly cycles in which man and
nature function under God's ultimate control. In this sense Genesis 1 is the
inaugural history80 of initial beginnings which shapes from creation
week onward the following flow of the history of the world and humanity.
V. LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF CREATION "DAYS"
We shall consider the usage of "day" (Hebrew yôm) along major lines of current scholarship. There are liberal and non-liberal scholars who have concluded that the word "day" (Hebrew yôm) in Genesis 1 must be singularly understood in a literal sense. We will review some of their reasons and provide additional ones.
1. Considerations from Commentaries
The influential Continental liberal Old Testament
theologian and exegete Gerhard von Rad states, "The seven days are
unquestionably to be understood as actual days and as a unique, unrepeatable
lapse of time in the world."81 Gordon Wenham, a British
non-concordist Old Testament scholar, concludes, "There can be little doubt that
here 'day' has its basic sense of a 24-hour period."82 James Barr,
renowned Semitist and Old Testament scholar, notes with vengeance against
flgurative interpreters that the creation "days" were six literal days of a 1
44-hour period.83 Form critic Hermann Gunkel concluded long ago, "The
'days' are of course days and nothing else."84 This refrain can be
continued with many additional voices, sharing the same non-concordist
position.
Victor P. Hamilton concludes, as do other broad
concordist neoevangelical scholars, "And whoever wrote Gen. l believed he was
talking about literal days."85 John H. Stek, another broad
concordist, makes a number of points in his support for literal "days":
Surely there is no sign or hint within the narrative [of Genesis 1] itself that the author thought his 'days' to be irregular designations — first a series of undefined periods, then a series of solar days — or that the 'days' he bounded with 'evening and morning' could possibly be understood as long aeons of time. His language is plain and simple, and he speaks in plain and simple terms of one of the most common elements in humanity's experience of the world.... In his storying of God's creative acts, the author was 'moved' to sequence them after the manner of human acts and 'time' them after the pattern of created time in humanity's arena of experience.86
Numerous scholars and commentators, regardless of whether they are concordist or non-concordist, have concluded that the creation "days" cannot be anything but literal 24-hour days. They are fully aware of the figurative, non-literal interpretations of the word "day" in Genesis 1 for the sake of harmonization with the long ages demanded by the evolutionary model of origins. Yet, they insist on the ground of careful investigations of the usage of "day" in Genesis 1 and elsewhere that the true meaning and intention of a creation "day" is a literal day of 24 hours.
2. Considerations from Lexicography
The most widely recognized Hebrew lexicons and
dictionaries of the Hebrew language published in the twentieth century affirm
that the designation "day" in Genesis 1 is meant to communicate a 24-hour day,
respectively, a solar day.
A prestigious recently
published lexicon refers to Genesis 1:5 as the first scriptural entry for the
definition of "day of 24 hours" for the Hebrew term yôm
("day").87 Holladay's Hebrew-English lexicon follows suit with "day
of 24 hours."88 The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, the classical
Hebrew-English lexicon, also defines the creation "day" of Genesis 1 as a
regular "day as defined by evening and
morning."89
Lexicographers of the Hebrew
languages are among the most qualified of Hebrew scholars. They are expected to
give great care in their definitions and also usually indicate alternative
meanings, if there is warrant to do so in given instances. None of the
lexicographers have departed from the meaning of the word "day" as a literal day
of 24 hours for Genesis 1.
3. Considerations from Dictionaries
Magne Saeboe writes in the acclaimed Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament that the "day" (yôm) in Genesis 1 has
a literal meaning in the sense of "a full day."90 He does not
entertain another meaning or alternative.
Ernst Jenni, an
acclaimed Hebrew scholar of the twentieth century, states in the most-widely
used theological dictionary of the Hebrew language that the meaning of "day" in
the Genesis creation account is to be understood in its literal meaning as a
"day of 24 hours in the sense of an astronomical or calendrical unit of
time."91
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 yôm. 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 yôm 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 yôm, 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
It is important to keep in
mind that "the semantic content of the words can be seen more clearly in their
various combinations with other words and their extended semantic
field."95
What are the semantic-syntactical
guidelines for extended, non-literal meanings of the Hebrew term yôm? The
extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always found in
connection with prepositions,96 prepositional phrases with a verb,
compound constructions, formulas, technical expressions, genitive combinations,
construct phrases, and the like.97 In other words, extended,
non-literal meanings of this Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual
connections which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended. If
such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm does not
have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its normal meaning of a literal
day of 24-hours.
In view of the wealth of usages of this
Hebrew term, it is imperative to study the usage of the term yôm in
Genesis 1 so that it can be compared with other usages. Does this chapter
contain the needed indicators by which yôm 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 yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 as any scholar who knows
Hebrew can describe them:
Let us note these criteria as they are employed in Genesis
2:4. The noun yôm is joined to the preposition be to read
beyôm. 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 yôm in the creation account of Genesis
2:4-25 shows that the contrary usage of yôm in Genesis 1, without any
expected qualifier that marks it as a non-literal use, has a literal meaning.
The term yôm 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 yôm can mean only a literal "day"
of 24 hours.
In short, the semantic-syntactical usages of
yôm, "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.
5. Considerations Based on Singular Usage
The Hebrew term yôm appears in the Hebrew Old
Testament 2,304 times101 of which 1,452 usages are in the
singular.102
In the Five Books of Moses
(Pentateuch) this term is used 668 times and in the book of Genesis it is
employed 152 times.103 In Genesis the singular usage of "day" appears
83 times, the remainder usages are in the plural.
In the
enumeration of the six "days" of creation the term "day" is used consistently in
the singular. There is one plural use in the phrase "for days and years" in
vs.14 which is, of course, not a creation "day." This plural usage in vs.14
hardly enters the discussion of making creation "days" long periods of time
since calendrical usage of "days and years" keeps it literal itself. There is no
doubt but that the literal meaning of 24-hour days are meant in vs.14 just as
the "years" are likewise understood as literal years.
The
additional usages of "day" in the singular in Genesis 1 are found in vss.5 and
16. "And God called the light 'day' (yôm)" (vs.5) and God made the
"greater light to govern the day" (vs.16). The term in vs.5 is employed in the
sense of the literal daylight period of the light part of the 24-hour period of
time in contrast to the night part, "the night" (vs. 16), of the same period of
time.104 Both "day" and "night" make a "full
day."105
We have to recognize the fact that the
term yôm in every one of the six days has the same connection: a) It is
used as a singular; b) it has a numeral; and c) it is preceded by the phrase,
"there was evening and there was morning." This triple interlocking connection
of singular usage, joined by a numeral, and the temporal definition of "evening
and morning," keeps the creation "day" the same throughout the creation account.
It also reveals that "time is conceived as linear and events occur within it
successively."106 To depart from the numerical, consecutive linkage
and the "evening-morning" boundaries in such direct language would mean to take
extreme liberty with the plain and direct meaning of the Hebrew
language.107
6. Considerations Based on Numeral Usage
The six creation "days" are in each instance joined with a
numeral in the sequence of one to six (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). The day
following the "sixth day," the "day" on which God rested, is designated "the
seventh day" (Genesis 2:2 [2 times],3).
What seems of
significance is the sequential emphasis of the numerals 1-7 without any break or
temporal interruption. This seven-day schema, the schema of the week of six
workdays followed by "the seventh day" as rest day, interlinks the creation
"days" as normal days in a consecutive and non-interrupted
sequence.
When the word yôm, "day," is employed
together with a numeral, which happens 150 times in the Old Testament, it refers
in the Old Testament invariably to a literal day of 24
hours.
This rule is pervasive in the Old Testament. The
only exception in numbers of 1-1,000 is found in an eschatological text in
Zechariah 14:7. The Hebrew expression yôm 'echad employed in Zechariah
14:7 is rendered into English in a variety of ways: "for it will be a unique
day" (New American Standard Bible, New International Version); "and there shall
be continuous day" (New Revised Standard Version); "it will be continuous day"
(Revised English Bible); or "and the day shall be one."108 The
"continuous day," or "one day," of the eschatological future will be one in
which the normal rhythm of evening and morning, day and night, as it is known
will be changed so that in that eschatological day there shall be "light even at
the evening" (vs.7). It is generally acknowledged that this is a difficult text
in the Hebrew language and can hardly be used to change the plain usage in
Genesis 1.109
7. Considerations Based on Article Usage
The term "day" is used in Hebrew without the article in
each instance of each creation day, except in the cases of "the sixth day"
(Genesis 1:31, Hebrew yôm hashshishî) and "the seventh day" (Genesis
2:2).110
It is noted from time to time that the
first "day" of Genesis 1:5 in Hebrew reads literally "one day,"111
because we have the cardinal number "one" used with the term
"day."
The lack of the definite article has been
interpreted to mean that all creation "days" (except "the sixth day," which has
the article) will allow "for the possibility of random or literary order as well
as a rigidly chronological order."112 This is a rather shaky
interpretation. It cannot be supported from semantic-syntactical points of
view.
We need to understand the syntax of the Hebrew text
and interpret the text accordingly without violence to the internal structure of
the Hebrew language. The recent research grammar by Bruce K. Waltke and M.
O'Connor points out that the indefinite noun yôm with the indefinite
cardinal numeral for "one" (Hebrew 'echad) in Genesis 1:5 has "an
emphatic, counting force" and a "definite sense" in addition to having the force
of an ordinal number which is to be rendered as "the first
day."113
Based on this syntactical observation
of the Hebrew language, "the first day" and "the sixth day" of the creation week
are meant to be definite in the sense that they have the article by syntactical
rule or by writing (not to speak of "the seventh day" which will be considered
below). The first and last creation "days" are definite by syntax or writing,
the first by syntactical function and the last by the usage of the article. One
observation emerges — this definite usage of the first and last day of creation
forms a literary device, an inclusio, which frames the six creation
"days" with definite or articular days. One of the intentions of this usage
seems to be that the "days" of Genesis 1 do not permit the conclusion that
random order or chronological order is an open-ended
issue.114
The opposite is actually the case.
Since the first and sixth days are definite, providing a clear boundary, the
days are meant to be chronological and sequential, forming an uninterrupted
six-day period of literal 24-hour days of creation. Thus, the definite use of
the first and sixth days respectively mark and frame the six-day sequence into a
coherent sequential and chronological unit of time which will be repeated in
each successive week.
"The seventh day" is also written
with the Hebrew article. Since "the first day" (vs.5) is definite as well as
"the sixth day" (vs.31), a larger unit is formed. It is the unit of six workdays
followed by "the seventh day" (Genesis 2:2,3), the day of rest. In this way the
sequence of six workdays find their goal and climax chronologically and
sequentially in "the seventh day," making together the weekly cycle with the day
of rest being the "seventh day" of the week.
The larger
unit of literal time accordingly consists of the divinely planned unit of the
"six-plus-one schema" which consists of the "six" workdays followed in an
uninterrupted manner and in sequence by "the seventh day" of rest. This
uninterrupted sequence is divinely planned and ordained as the rhythm of the
time for each successive week.
8. Considerations Based on the "Evening-Morning" Boundary
The Genesis creation account not only links each day to a
sequential numeral but it also sets the time boundaries by "evening and morning"
(vss.5,8,13,19,23,31). The rhythmic boundary phrase, "and there was evening and
there was morning," provides a definition of the creation "day." The creation
"day" is defined as consisting of "evening" and "morning." It is a literal
"day."
The term for "evening" (Hebrew
'ereb)115 covers the dark part of the day in a pars pro
toto (meaning that a part, in this case the "evening," stands for the whole
dark part of the day) usage (cf. "day-night" in Genesis 1:14). The corresponding
term "morning" (Hebrew bqer) stands pars pro toto (meaning that a
part, in this case the "morning," stands for the light part of the day) "for the
entire period of daylight."116 It is to be noted that the
"evening-morning" expression must be understood to have the same signification
in every one of its six usages.117
"Evening and
morning" is a temporal expression which defines each "day" of creation as a
literal day. It cannot be made to mean anything else.
9. Considerations Based on Pentateuchal Sabbath Passages
Another kind of internal evidence provided in the Old
Testament for the meaning of days derives from two Sabbath passages in the
Pentateuch which refer back to the creation "days." They inform the reader how
the creation "days" were understood by God.
The first
passage is part of the Fourth Commandment spoken by God on Mt. Sinai and
recorded recorded in Exodus 20:9-11: "Six days you shall do all your labor ...
but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God.... For in six days the
Lord made the heavens and the earth ... and rested on the seventh day; therefore
the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
"These
words" are spoken by Yahweh Himself (vs. 1). The linkages to creation are in
wording ("seventh day," "heaven and earth," "rested," "blessed," "made it holy")
and in the "six-plus-one" schema (see also Deuteronomy 5:13-14) to mention but
these.118 Evidently the words used in the Ten Commandments take the
creation "day" as "a regular day"119 of 24 hours and demonstrate that
the weekly cycle is a temporal creation ordinance.
These
words of the Lord provide an internal Pentateuch and Old Testament guideline on
how God, the Giver of the "Ten Words" understands the creation "day." The divine
speech which promulgates the Sabbath commandment takes the "six days" of
creation to be sequential, chronological and
literal.120
The argument that the relationship
of the Fourth Commandment is but an "analogy" or "archetype" in the sense that
man's rest on the seventh day ought to be like God's rest in
creation121 is based on reductionism and an impermissible change of
imagery. Terence Fretheim noted incisively that the Commandment does not use
analogy or archetypal thinking but that its emphasis is "stated in terms of the
imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed: god worked for
six days and rested on the seventh, and therefore you should do the
same."122
The second Pentateuchal Sabbath
passage is Exodus 31:15-17, which is again spoken by God Himself. It has several
terminological linkages with Genesis 1 and is conceptually and thematically
related to it. This passage has to be understood to mean that the creation "day"
was a literal day and that the days were sequential and chronological. The
weekly sabbath for God's people is based on imitation and example, for "in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he ceased from
labor, and was refreshed" (vs. 17, New American Standard
Bible).
God was refreshed because He had delight in His
completed work of creation. Humankind will also be refreshed and have delight
when the Sabbath as "seventh day" (vs. 15) is kept.
The
"sign" nature of the Sabbath in vs. 15 reveals that the Sabbath keeper follows
the divine Exemplar. He Himself kept "the seventh day" which humans who belong
to Him will imitate. They will do so in the same rhythm of the literal weekly
cycle of six literal workdays followed chronologically and sequentially by "the
seventh day" as a day of rest and refreshment as their Creator had done during
creation week.
10. Considerations Based on Sequence of Events
The creation of vegetation with seed-bearing plants and
fruit trees took place on the third day (Genesis 1:11-12). Much of this
vegetation seems to need insects for pollination. Insects were created on the
fifth day (vs.20). If the survival of those types of plants which needed insects
for pollination depended on them to generate seeds and to perpetuate themselves,
then there would be a serious problem should the creation "day" consist of long
ages or aeons. The type of plant life dependent on this type of pollination
process without the presence of insects could not have survived for these long
periods of time, if "day" were to mean "age" or "aeon." In addition,
"consistency of interpretation in the 'day-age theory' would demand a long
period of light and darkness during each of the ages. This would quickly be
fatal both to plant and animal life."123
It
seems that the creation "day" is expected to be understood as a literal day and
not as a long period of time whether ages, periods, or
aeons.
Although these arguments may not be decisive, they
nevertheless point in the same direction as the decisive linguistic and semantic
points which are found in the Hebrew text itself.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated the meaning of creation "days." It
has considered key arguments in favor of a figurative, non-literal meaning of
the creation "days." It found them to be wanting on the basis of genre
investigation, literary considerations, grammatical study, syntactical usages,
and semantic connections. The cumulative evidence, based on comparative,
literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading
to the singular conclusion that the designation yôm, "day," in Genesis 1
means consistently a literal 24-hour day.
The author of
Genesis 1 could not have produced more comprehensive and all-inclusive ways to
express the idea of a literal "day" than the ones that were chosen. There is a
complete lack of indicators from prepositions, qualifying expressions, construct
phrases, semantic-syntactical connections, and so on, on the basis of which the
designation "day" in the creation week could be taken to be anything different
than a regular 24-hour day. The combinations of the factors of articular usage,
singular gender, semantic-syntactical constructions, time boundaries, and so on,
corroborated by the divine promulgations in such Pentateuchal passages as Exodus
20:8-11 and Exodus 31:12-17, suggest uniquely and consistently that the creation
"day" is meant to be literal, sequential, and chronological in nature.
ENDNOTES
All contents copyright Geoscience Research
Institute. All rights reserved. | Home | About Us | Contact Us |
Send comments and questions to webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New | Resources | Search | Links |