ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Welcome to my library—a curated collection of research and original arguments exploring why I believe Christianity, creationism, and Intelligent Design offer the most compelling explanations for our origins. Otangelo Grasso


You are not connected. Please login or register

Yom - long periods of time, or literal days in Genesis ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin

Exegesis: Why "Yom" in Genesis is Best Interpreted as Literal 24-Hour Days

The interpretation of "yom" in Genesis as literal 24-hour days is supported by several compelling reasons. Linguistically, the context strongly suggests a literal meaning. Throughout the Old Testament, when "yom" is used with a numeral, it consistently refers to a 24-hour day. The repeated phrase "evening and morning" accompanying each day further reinforces this interpretation, implying a normal day-night cycle. Moreover, the sequential numbering of days ("first day," "second day," etc.) aligns with how we typically describe a series of literal days. The authorial intent also supports a literal interpretation. If Moses, traditionally considered the author, had meant to convey long ages, he could have used clearer terms or phrases to express this. The style of Genesis 1 is historical narrative, not poetic or allegorical, which suggests a literal reading is most appropriate. Theologically, a literal interpretation maintains consistency within Scripture. The Fourth Commandment in Exodus 20:11 explicitly links the six days of creation to the Sabbath day, implying they are of the same duration. This establishes the pattern for human work and rest, reflecting God's creative activity. Furthermore, Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament refer to Genesis as historical fact, including events tied to the creation week. The genealogies presented in the New Testament assume a literal Adam, created at a specific time in history.

Traditionally, the majority of Jewish and Christian interpreters throughout history have understood the days of creation as literal. Alternative interpretations largely arose after the advent of modern geological theories, suggesting that external factors, rather than the text itself, prompted these new readings. A literal interpretation also maintains the integrity of the text without requiring reinterpretation based on external factors. It preserves the straightforward reading of the text, which is a principle of sound hermeneutics. While not a strictly exegetical argument, some proponents argue that scientific evidence can be interpreted to support a young earth, aligning with a literal six-day creation. Theologically, a literal interpretation upholds the doctrine of God's supernatural creative power, acting decisively and quickly. It also maintains the concept of a "very good" original creation, free from death and suffering before the Fall. The literary structure of Genesis 1, with its repetitive pattern (God said, God saw, evening and morning) and use of "wayyiqtol" verb forms in Hebrew, indicates sequential actions supporting a chronological interpretation. The literal day interpretation shows consistency with Genesis 2, which provides a more detailed account of Day 6. The events described in Genesis 2 fit reasonably within a 24-hour period if taken literally, further supporting this view. These reasons, when considered together, form a strong argument for interpreting "yom" in Genesis 1 as referring to literal 24-hour days. Proponents of this view argue that it offers the most straightforward, contextually consistent, and theologically coherent interpretation of the biblical text. 

Several Church Fathers and early Christian theologians interpreted the word "yom" (Hebrew for "day") in Genesis 1 as a literal 24-hour day and the creation week as a literal seven-day period. Here is a list of notable figures who held this view:

1. Basil of Caesarea (329-379 AD) – In his Hexaemeron (Homilies on the Six Days of Creation), Basil clearly understood the days of creation as six literal days. He described each "day" as a 24-hour period in which God created specific elements of the world.
2. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397 AD) – In his Hexameron, Ambrose also took the days of creation literally. He emphasized the idea that the days were real and that God's work in creation was completed in six actual days, with each day consisting of a normal 24-hour period.
3. Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century AD) – Theophilus, in his work To Autolycus, wrote about the creation week as a literal period of seven days. He saw each day of creation as literal and connected the creation week with later historical events in salvation history.
4. Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373 AD) – Ephrem, in his commentaries, also interpreted Genesis 1 literally. He took the view that the days of creation were normal 24-hour days and saw no reason to allegorize or extend their length.
5. Victorinus of Pettau (d. 303 AD) – Victorinus, in his commentary on Genesis, likewise interpreted the days of creation as literal 24-hour days. His early commentary laid the foundation for this literalist understanding of the creation week in some segments of the early Church.
6. John Chrysostom (c. 349-407 AD) – Known for his eloquent homilies and exegesis, Chrysostom took a literal view of Genesis 1. He emphasized that God created the world in six days, each consisting of a normal 24-hour period.

These Church Fathers, though from different regions and backgrounds, shared the view that the days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, underscoring a belief in a straightforward, historical reading of the Genesis creation narrative. However, it should be noted that not all early Church Fathers agreed with this interpretation, and there were alternative views as well.


The Book of Jubilees: Supporting Literal Creation Days

The Book of Jubilees, also known as "Lesser Genesis," is a pseudepigraphal work believed to have been written between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE. This text provides strong support for interpreting the creation days in Genesis as literal 24-hour periods. Here's a detailed explanation of why Jubilees reinforces the literal day interpretation:

1. Precise Chronology: Jubilees presents an extremely detailed chronology of events, breaking down history into precise units of time. It divides history into "jubilee" periods of 49 years, which are further divided into "weeks" of seven years. This meticulous timekeeping extends to the creation account, suggesting a literal understanding of time in Genesis.
2. Day-by-Day Creation Account: Jubilees retells the creation story following the same day-by-day structure as Genesis 1. It explicitly states that God created specific elements on each of the six days, mirroring the Genesis account. This parallel structure reinforces the idea that the author of Jubilees understood the Genesis days as literal 24-hour periods.
3. Emphasis on the Seventh Day: Jubilees places strong emphasis on the seventh day as the origin of the Sabbath. It describes God's rest on the seventh day and establishes this as the basis for the weekly Sabbath observance. This direct link between the creation week and the human week strongly implies that the creation days were understood as normal 24-hour days.
4. Angels Created on the First Day: Jubilees states that angels were created on the first day, along with the heavens and the earth. This addition to the Genesis account demonstrates a literal understanding of the first day as a defined period in which specific creative acts occurred.
5. Specific Times for Creation Events: In some instances, Jubilees provides even more specific timing for creation events than Genesis does. For example, it states that Adam was created at the end of the sixth day and placed in Eden. Such precise timing within a day supports a literal 24-hour day interpretation.
6. Consistent Use of "Day": Throughout its retelling of creation, Jubilees consistently uses the term "day" (yom) in a way that clearly refers to a normal day-night cycle. This usage aligns with and reinforces the literal day interpretation of Genesis.
7. Connection to Human History: Jubilees connects the creation week directly to human history, treating it as the beginning of a continuous timeline. This seamless integration of creation days with subsequent historical events supports a literal interpretation of the creation days.
8. Sabbath Law Grounded in Creation: Jubilees explicitly grounds Sabbath law in the creation week, stating that the Sabbath was kept in heaven before it was revealed to humanity. This cosmic significance of the Sabbath, tied directly to creation, implies that the creation days were understood as the same kind of days that humans experience.
9. Preservation of Traditional Interpretation: As an early Jewish text, Jubilees likely reflects a traditional understanding of Genesis that was prevalent at the time. Its literal interpretation of creation days suggests that this was the common understanding among Jewish readers of Genesis in that era.
10. Theological Consistency: The literal day interpretation in Jubilees maintains theological consistency with the idea of God's direct and immediate creative acts. It portrays God as acting decisively and quickly, in line with the portrayal of divine power in other biblical texts.

The Book of Jubilees' strong support for literal creation days is significant because it provides evidence of how early Jewish readers understood Genesis. While Jubilees is not considered canonical by most Christian traditions, its interpretation of Genesis offers valuable insight into early biblical exegesis and the historical understanding of the creation account. This literal day interpretation in Jubilees aligns with and reinforces the arguments made by many contemporary young-earth creationists and literal Genesis interpreters. It demonstrates that the understanding of creation days as 24-hour periods has deep roots in Jewish interpretative tradition, predating many of the scientific theories that have led some to reinterpret Genesis in terms of long ages.

Exegesis: Literal Interpretation of the Creation Week in Ancient Texts

1. The Targums
The Aramaic Targums, especially Targum Onkelos, support a literal interpretation for several reasons:
a) Linguistic Fidelity: As translations, the Targums aimed to preserve the original Hebrew meaning. The Hebrew word "yom" (day) in Genesis 1 is consistently rendered as "yoma" in Aramaic, maintaining the temporal sense.
b) Rabbinic Authority: The Targums reflect authoritative rabbinic interpretations. Their literal rendering of the creation days indicates that this was the prevailing understanding among leading Jewish scholars of the time.
c) Liturgical Use: The Targums were used in synagogue services, where a straightforward understanding of the text was often preferred for public instruction.

2. Philo of Alexandria (as a Contrast)
While Philo himself allegorized the creation account, his work indirectly supports the existence of literal interpretations:
a) Reactive Philosophy: Philo's allegorical approach can be seen as a reaction to prevailing literal interpretations, which he sought to reconcile with Greek philosophy.
b) Acknowledgment of Literalism: In his writings, Philo often acknowledges the literal meaning before expounding on allegorical interpretations, indicating that the literal reading was common and needed to be addressed.

4. Early Rabbinic Literature
The Mishnah and early rabbinic commentaries often support a literal interpretation:
a) Halakhic (Legal) Implications: Many Jewish laws are derived from the creation account. A literal understanding of the days provides a stronger basis for these laws, especially those related to the Sabbath.
b) Midrashic Methodology: While Midrashic literature often provides multiple layers of interpretation, it frequently begins with the "peshat" (plain or literal meaning) before exploring deeper significances.
c) Cosmic-Earthly Correspondence: Rabbinic thought often draws parallels between cosmic and earthly events. A literal creation week establishes a pattern that is then reflected in human history and ritual observances.

5. Early Christian Fathers
Church Fathers like Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Theophilus of Antioch advocated for literal interpretations:
a) Apologetic Concerns: In defending Christianity against pagan philosophies, a literal creation week emphasized God's direct involvement in and sovereignty over the physical world.
b) Christological Typology: The six days of creation followed by the Sabbath were often seen as a type of Christ's life, death, and rest in the tomb, making a literal week theologically significant.
c) Eschatological Framework: A literal creation week provided a pattern for understanding salvation history, from creation to the final judgment, often interpreted as a 7,000-year plan (with each day representing 1,000 years).

6. Jewish Mystical Texts
Even mystical texts like the Zohar, which explore deeper spiritual meanings, often preserve a literal framework:
a) Layered Interpretation: Kabbalistic thought sees multiple levels of meaning in the Torah, with the literal level (peshat) serving as the foundation for deeper esoteric interpretations.
b) Cosmic Symbolism: The seven days are often associated with the seven lower sefirot (divine emanations) in Kabbalistic thought, where each "day" represents a stage in the unfolding of divine creativity.

7. Christian Apocryphal Texts
Many apocryphal Christian texts maintain a literal creation week:
a) Continuity with Jewish Tradition: Early Christian apocrypha often preserved Jewish interpretative traditions, including literal readings of Genesis.
b) Moral and Eschatological Focus: These texts often used the creation account as a basis for moral teachings or eschatological predictions, where a literal timeframe provided a more concrete foundation for their arguments.

8. Other Ancient Texts
a) The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: The Ethiopic Enoch, a significant text in ancient Judaism, supports a literal creation week with its cosmological focus. It describes the order of creation in a way that aligns with the Genesis account, emphasizing the importance of a seven-day period as foundational for understanding divine creation.

b) The Babylonian Talmud: In various tractates, the Talmud discusses the creation week in a literal sense, particularly in connection with the observance of the Sabbath. While the Talmud sometimes introduces allegorical interpretations, the literal reading is central to many legal and theological discussions.
c) Hellenistic Jewish Writings: Texts like the Wisdom of Solomon, though more philosophical, still preserve a literal creation framework in their descriptions of divine action and the natural world.

The prevalence of literal interpretations of the creation week across various ancient texts can be attributed to several factors:

1. Textual Fidelity: A desire to remain faithful to the plain meaning of the biblical text.
2. Theological Significance: The importance of the seven-day structure for understanding divine order, the Sabbath, and salvation history.
3. Ritual and Legal Implications: The practical application of the creation account to religious laws and practices.


Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum The Book of Genesis Dr. , page 73
One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours. Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.

1. Death Before Sin: Long ages would imply millions of years of animal death before human sin, contradicting the biblical concept that death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12). This challenges the theology of redemption and the nature of God's "very good" original creation.
2. Impact on the Doctrine of Sin and Fall: A non-literal Adam or a long process of human evolution challenges the doctrine of original sin and the historical Fall. This affects core Christian doctrines about human nature, sin, and the need for redemption.
3. Challenges to the Character of God: Long ages of creation could imply a God who uses inefficient, wasteful processes involving death and suffering, rather than the omnipotent Creator described in Scripture.
4. Hermeneutical Consistency: If Genesis 1 is not historical, it raises questions about where history begins in the Bible, potentially affecting the interpretation of other biblical narratives.
5. New Testament Affirmations: Jesus and the apostles refer to Genesis as historical fact, including events tied to the creation week. Reinterpreting Genesis could be seen as contradicting these New Testament affirmations.
6. Theological Coherence: A literal six-day creation upholds the doctrine of God's supernatural creative power, acting decisively and quickly. Long ages may diminish the miraculous nature of creation as presented in Scripture.
7. Impact on Genealogies: Biblical genealogies, especially in the New Testament, assume a literal Adam created at a specific time in history. Long ages would significantly disrupt these genealogical timelines.
8. Challenges to the Doctrine of Revelation: If the plain reading of Genesis 1 is not reliable, it may call into question God's ability or willingness to communicate clearly with humanity.
9. Implications for Eschatology: Some argue that reinterpreting the creation days affects how we interpret prophetic literature, potentially impacting doctrines about the end times.
10. Unity of Scripture: A non-literal interpretation of Genesis may create tensions with other parts of Scripture that refer back to creation events.
11. Faith and Science Relationship: While attempting to reconcile Scripture with science, reinterpretation might inadvertently prioritize current scientific consensus over biblical authority.

These issues highlight why many theologians and biblical scholars argue for maintaining a literal interpretation of "yom" in Genesis. They contend that this interpretation offers the most straightforward, contextually consistent, and theologically coherent understanding of the biblical text.

1. Ken Ham (1951–present)
  - Founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
  - Strong proponent of young-earth creationism and a literal interpretation of "yom" as 24-hour days.

2. Henry Morris (1918–2006)
  - Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
  - Co-authored The Genesis Flood (1961), foundational to the modern creationist movement.

3. John C. Whitcomb (1924–2020)
  - Co-author with Henry Morris of The Genesis Flood.
  - Promoted the literal interpretation of the creation days as 24-hour periods.

4. Douglas Kelly (1943–present)
  - Reformed theologian and author of Creation and Change.
  - Advocates for the literal interpretation of "yom" as six consecutive 24-hour days.

5. John MacArthur (1939–present)
  - Well-known pastor and Bible teacher.
  - Teaches that the Genesis account should be understood as literal history with six 24-hour days of creation.

6. Terry Mortenson
  - Speaker, author, and researcher at Answers in Genesis.
  - Argues for the literal 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis 1.

7. Jason Lisle
  - Astrophysicist and young-earth creationist.
  - Defends the literal interpretation of Genesis days and has written on the intersection of science and the Bible.

8. Andrew Snelling (1950–present)
  - Geologist with Answers in Genesis.
  - Supports the young-earth view and argues for a literal six-day creation based on both biblical and scientific evidence.

9. Jonathan Sarfati (1964–present)
  - Physical chemist and prominent creationist author.
  - Has written extensively on the young-earth creationist perspective, promoting the view that "yom" in Genesis refers to literal 24-hour days.

10. Duane Gish (1921–2013)
  - Biochemist and prominent advocate for young-earth creationism.
  - Key member of the Institute for Creation Research, defending the literal interpretation of Genesis.

11. Carl Wieland (1950–present)
  - Founder of Creation Ministries International.
  - Promotes young-earth creationism and the view that the Genesis creation days are literal 24-hour periods.

12. Kurt Wise (1959–present)
  - Geologist and young-earth creationist.
  - Known for his work supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis, emphasizing the importance of a young-earth view.

13. Danny Faulkner (1955–present)
  - Astronomer associated with Answers in Genesis.
  - Argues that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour days.

14. Paul Garner
  - Geologist and researcher at Biblical Creation Ministries.
  - Supports a literal interpretation of the six days of creation.

15. David Menton (1938–2021)
  - Professor of anatomy and researcher with Answers in Genesis.
  - Advocated for a literal interpretation of the creation days in Genesis.

16. John Baumgardner (1945–present)
  - Geophysicist and young-earth creationist.
  - Known for his work on catastrophic plate tectonics and supporting a literal six-day creation.

17. Raymond Damadian (1936–2022)
  - Pioneer of MRI technology and a strong advocate for young-earth creationism.
  - Believed in a literal interpretation of the six days of creation.

18. Steve Austin (1950–present)
  - Geologist and creationist known for his research on the Mount St. Helens eruption and its implications for rapid geological processes.
  - Supports a literal interpretation of "yom" in Genesis.

19. David DeWitt
  - Neuroscientist and professor at Liberty University.
  - Argues for the literal 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis 1.

20. Don Batten
  - Agricultural scientist and researcher with Creation Ministries International.
  - Strong advocate for the literal six-day creation model.

These scholars, spanning various fields of science, theology, and biblical studies, all share a commitment to interpreting the creation days in Genesis as literal 24-hour days, typically within the framework of young-earth creationism. They argue that this interpretation is consistent with both the biblical text and, in their view, scientific evidence that supports a young earth.


The following verses show how Jesus frequently referenced and affirmed foundational elements from Genesis, particularly the creation of humans, the establishment of marriage, key figures like Noah and Abel, and events such as the Flood and the Fall.

1. Marriage and Creation of Male and Female
  - Matthew 19:4-6: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?"
  - Mark 10:6-8: Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, affirming the creation of male and female and the institution of marriage.

2. Abel's Murder
  - Matthew 23:35: "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah..."
  - Luke 11:50-51: Jesus mentions the righteous blood of Abel, referring to the murder of Abel in Genesis 4:8.

3. Sabbath and Creation Rest
  - Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
  - Matthew 12:8: "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
    - These passages refer back to the seventh day of rest in Genesis 2:2-3, when God rested after creation.

4. Noah and the Flood
  - Matthew 24:37-39: "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."
  - Luke 17:26-27: Jesus uses the narrative of Noah from Genesis 6-9 to describe the suddenness of His return.

5. Sodom and Gomorrah
  - Luke 17:28-32: Jesus refers to the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19) and compares it to the coming judgment. He also mentions Lot's wife (Genesis 19:26) in this context.

6. Creation of the World
  - John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
    - While not spoken by Jesus, this passage in John's Gospel identifies Jesus (the Word) as being present at creation, affirming Genesis 1:1.

7. Satan as a Murderer from the Beginning
  - John 8:44: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning..."
    - This may allude to Satan's role in the Fall (Genesis 3) or his association with Cain's murder of Abel (Genesis 4).


https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Genesis: A Revised Account Conveying Billions of Years

Chapter 1

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Vast eons of time back, stretching back to the dawn of the universe.  
1:2 Now the earth was formless and in a state of chaos, shrouded in darkness, while the Spirit of God moved over the primordial waters, preparing the world for life.  
1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and over a span of countless ages, light emerged as stars ignited and galaxies formed.  
1:4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.  
1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first great age.

1:6 And God said, "Let there be a vast expanse between the waters, to separate the waters above from the waters below."  
1:7 So God crafted the skies over an immense period, establishing the atmosphere and weather patterns. And it was so.  
1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second great age.

1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry land appear." And it was so, over countless aeons of time, as the land emerged from the waters and continents formed.  
1:10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters He called "seas." And God saw that it was good.  
1:11 Then God said, "Let the land bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and trees that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds." And over vast ages, the earth became filled with plants, forests, and diverse ecosystems.  
1:12 The land produced vegetation over vast numbers of years, thousands of millions of years, each kind according to its design. And God saw that it was good.  
1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third great age.

1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the sky to separate day from night, and let them mark seasons, days, and years over the course of time."  
1:15 And the skies cleared as the sun, moon, and stars became visible from the earth’s surface, serving as signs for life to follow the rhythms of time. And it was so.  
1:16 God had made the sun, the greater light to govern the day, and the moon, the lesser light to govern the night, long before. He also made the stars.  
1:17 God set them in the sky to illuminate the earth,  
1:18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.  
1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth great age.

1:20 And God said, "Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the sky."  
1:21 So, over many ages, God brought forth the creatures of the sea and every kind of bird, each evolving into its place in the world, filling the earth with life. And God saw that it was good.  
1:22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the seas and the sky with life."  
1:23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth great age.

1:24 And God said, "Let the land bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, wild animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground." And over millions of years, animals of every kind emerged, evolved and diversified, each according to its kind.  
1:25 God made all the creatures of the land: wild beasts, domestic animals, and every creeping thing, each fitting its environment. And God saw that it was good.

1:26 Then God said, "Let us make humanity in our image, in our likeness, to govern the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, and all the creatures of the earth."  
1:27 So, over a long and deliberate process, God created humankind in His image; male and female He created them, endowing them with reason, spirit, and authority over creation.  
1:28 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and govern it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and every living creature on the ground."  
1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree with fruit bearing seed. These will be your food.  
1:30 And to all the animals and birds and creatures that move along the ground, I give every green plant for food." And it was so.  
1:31 God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth great age.

Chapter 2

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, with all their vast and diverse life forms, over the course of eons.  
2:2 By the end of these immense epochs, God had finished the work of creation, and He entered into His rest, allowing the processes of nature to continue under His guidance.  
2:3 God blessed this seventh era and made it holy, for in it, He rested from all His work of creating, having set the world in motion.

In this revised Genesis account, God conveyed to Moses the vast ages involved in creation, each "day" representing a long period in the unfolding of the cosmos. The six "days" mark distinct epochs over billions of years, reflecting the gradual progression of creation, from the formation of the universe to the rise of humanity. This account harmonizes with the scientific understanding of deep time, showing that God’s hand was guiding each stage of development with purpose, even over eons.

Commentary: 

If God had created the universe and the earth billions of years ago, He could have made it clear in the Genesis account, yet He did not. This raises an important question: why isn't the concept of deep time explicitly present in the text, if that were truly the nature of creation? God is not a God of deception. If the universe had been created over such a vast timeline, it would be inconsistent with His nature to obscure or mislead humanity about the fundamental workings of creation.  If God had wanted to reveal that creation took place over billions of years, He could have done so. He could have conveyed the deep timescales in a way that ancient peoples might not fully understand at the time, but which could be recognized later as our knowledge grew. However, this is not the case. The simplicity of the "six-day" structure in Genesis stands in contrast to the complexities of deep time, and no indication is given that the creation process took anything resembling the vast timescales that modern science proposes. Since God is truthful, He would not have left room for misunderstanding the creation account and timescales involved. The billions-of-years model is not suggested in Genesis, and if God had intended for this to be understood as the truth, it would be there plainly. If the earth and the universe were indeed created billions of years ago, we would expect that God, being a God of truth, would have made that clear. The absence of such a timeline in Genesis suggests that this account was never meant to describe creation in terms of deep time, and God has not left us in deception concerning the fundamental nature of His creation.


A Account of Divine Inspiration to Moses Regarding Creation

1. The Divine Encounter on the Mountain

Moses ascended Mount Sinai once more, as he often did to commune with the Almighty. This time, however, the encounter was to be different. As Moses approached the summit, a great cloud of fire and light descended, yet it did not burn the rocks beneath it. Within the divine radiance, Moses heard the voice of the Creator, but this time it spoke not of laws or commandments, but of the very origins of the cosmos.

“Write, Moses, for I shall reveal to you the truth of how I made the heavens and the earth. And as you write, know that the mysteries of time and creation will unfold.”

2. The Universe’s Long Unfolding

In the presence of the Almighty, Moses saw a vision—one unlike any he had ever experienced. Before his eyes, the darkness of the void stretched vast and endless. A single point of light burst forth, expanding rapidly in every direction. It was the beginning of all things.

“It is from this moment, 13.8 billion years ago, that I brought forth the universe,” said the Lord. “The heavens began to expand, the stars were born, and from their dust came the worlds. Time, to you, passes quickly, but I am beyond time. It is I who set the course of creation, knowing every star, every planet, and every moment.”

As Moses watched the stars form, he understood that what seemed like mere days were, in truth, vast epochs beyond human comprehension. 

3. The Forming of the Earth

The vision shifted, focusing on a small, blue planet amidst the swirling cosmos. “Behold the earth,” the Creator declared, “born 4.5 billion years ago from the remnants of ancient stars. I shaped it over long ages, cooling it from a molten mass into a world where life could arise.”

Moses saw mountains rise and fall, seas form and grow. He witnessed the slow emergence of life in the oceans, creatures both great and small appearing over eons. 

“Life has flourished and died long before Adam walked the earth,” said the Almighty. “It was I who gave the breath of life to every creature, and it is by My will that they lived and perished, in cycles long before mankind’s dominion began. Death, Moses, is not the result of man’s fall, but has been woven into the very fabric of life from the beginning.”

4. The Emergence of Humankind

The vision continued, showing creatures walking on land, evolving over millions of years. Then, at last, Moses saw a man and a woman, standing in a lush garden. They were unlike the other creatures Moses had seen—there was a spark in them, a divine breath that gave them purpose and understanding.

“This is Adam and Eve,” the Lord revealed. “It is they to whom I gave My image. Though death existed before them, they were unique. They were not made to live without end, but I had set them in a place where they could live in harmony with Me, free from suffering.”

Moses saw the moment of their disobedience, the taking of the forbidden fruit, and the consequences that followed. But instead of bringing death into the world for the first time, their act brought a separation—a loss of direct communion with the Creator.

“Sin brought death into the heart of man,” said the Almighty. “It is this separation from Me that is death, far more than the end of their earthly lives. For their spirits, now burdened by sin, lost the eternal life that communion with Me alone could sustain.”

5. A New Understanding for a New People

As Moses sat, absorbing the magnitude of what he had seen, the Lord spoke again. “When you write, you must convey this creation in a way that your people will understand. The language of ages and eons is not for them, but the truth remains. Write of six days, for the pattern of six and one—the Sabbath rest—is sacred. Yet know that the reality you have seen transcends days. It is not for you to detail the ages of stars, but to guide My people to understand the order and purpose I have set.”

The vision faded, and Moses descended the mountain, his face shining with a light that reflected the glory of what he had witnessed. And though he would write the creation account in the terms of days, he carried within him the knowledge of a universe far older than words could express.

Moses, inspired by the Almighty, penned the creation account with the understanding that it was a story not just of seven days but of an unfolding cosmos, one in which the earth formed over billions of years and where death existed long before mankind’s fall. Yet the deeper truth lay in the relationship between God and His creation, and the special role humankind played in that grand design. The language of scripture was given for his people, but the vision of creation transcended time itself.

Objection:  The former president of the conservative seminary Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Dr. Walter Kaiser, who taught OT and Hebrew refuted the idea that "Throughout the Old Testament, when "yom" is used with a numeral, it consistently refers to a 24-hour day." That idea as well as the rest of the first paragraph is not a rule in ancient or formal Hebrew. Dr. Kaiser gives an example and states, “There is no rule in Hebrew grammar to that effect. In Zechariah 14:7, “It shall be ONE day [yom] which is known to the Lord,” the word “day” refers to “a future long period of events.” The suggestion that when numbers (1, 2, 3 or 1st, 2nd, 3rd) are used before yom, it always means a 24-hour period, is wrong. It is not a rule in Hebrew. Dr. Kaiser taught OT and Hebrew in a conservative seminary.
Here are other biblical facts (including Genesis 1) Dr. Kaiser points out:
a. Yom = 12 hours of daylight as opposed to nighttime. “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, ONE DAY.” The daytime was called “day” or yom (12 hours) and both day and night were called “day” (24 hours).

b. Yom = 24 hours. “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the DAY [12 hours] from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days [24 hours] and years.’”
c. Yom = a longer period of time. “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY [all six days] that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” Moses later used yom as an expression of an exceedingly long time when he wrote, “For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday [yom] when it passes.” A thousand years are yom. Yesterday is yom.
These verses are from Genesis 1--the primary source--already refuting the 24-hour period for yom.

Yes, the research of the church fathers in the article is very impressive. 
Dr. Kaiser wrote that the early church fathers wrote two thousand pages of commentary on the Genesis creation days, and “all these early scholars accepted that yom could mean ‘a long time period.’” “Not one Ante-Nicene Father explicitly endorsed the 24-hour interpretation.”

Honestly, the church fathers and reformers were not scientists who could confirm their biblical interpretations with reality (using God's Laws of Truth that come down into science as well as into sound hermeneutics for interpreting the Bible).

If we look to the church (as our Catholic friends do), then we must remember that the church also taught that earth was the center of the universe and supported Aristotle's geocentric view. The church is not a reliable source on this topic. Church fathers, reformers, etc. are not credible sources for science.

God's word the Bible and God's creation the universe are truth without contradictions. God's creation does not contradict God's word. Since science proves creation took ages, then God's word (yom) means ages. No contradiction.
New Earth throws out all scientific knowledge across astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. to support the 24-hour creation that even Genesis 1 contradicts.
Lastly, just because I debate the New Earth vs. Old Earth doctrines does not mean I do not respect those who disagree. I do a lot of evangelism with many from eastern religions like Islam, but I love them and respect them as persons and have many personal friends in real life (having lived in Malaysia, France, Mideast, and Africa for many years) as well as on Facebook from varying religions. I also have the highest respect for you as a Christian and your scientific investigations supporting the existence of God and debates with atheists. These have been very beneficial to me, and I have copied (with your name) a number of your posts for further reference.
Lastly, is this topic (New Earth vs. Old Earth) a worthy topic of discussion?

Is science (the study of God's creation by God's Laws of Truth coming down into the scientific process) important? Or do we throw out all science in a huge area of study (the creation of the universe) because of one Hebrew word?
Does God lie or deceive by creating physical laws in math, physics, chemistry, etc. leading scientific research to believe in a universe billions of years old then breaking them all by really creating a universe only 6,000 years old (making the universe one big illusion)?

"It is impossible for God to lie." (Hebrews 6:18)
Scientifically, theologically, and ethically this is a worthy discussion.

Response:  I understand that many people, including devout Christians, see reasons for interpreting the creation days in Genesis as long ages, suggesting an Old Earth Creation (OEC) model. There are some compelling points raised by OEC proponents:

1. The Flexibility of Yom: The Hebrew word yom, translated as "day," can indeed mean a longer period, as we see in contexts like Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday." There's linguistic flexibility that could allow each "day" in Genesis to represent an extended period.
2. Scientific Evidence for an Ancient Earth: OEC proponents point to substantial evidence from geology, astronomy, and biology suggesting that the earth and universe are billions of years old. They argue that findings in these fields could indicate a very old earth, created and developed over vast epochs of time.
3. The Testimony of Creation: The heavens do "declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), and some feel that interpreting scientific data for an older earth simply reveals the grand scope of God's creative process. The immense age of the cosmos, in this view, could reflect God's power and timelessness.

These points are worth consideration. I recognize the sincerity and commitment of many Old Earth Christians who wish to honor God and seek truth in both Scripture and creation. However, I personally prefer a YEC perspective and find it compelling for several reasons.

Why I Prefer a Young Earth Creation Perspective

1. A Plain Reading of Genesis
The language in Genesis is simple and direct. Each day of creation is described with the phrase "evening and morning," which seems like a clear indicator of a 24-hour day. If Genesis were describing eons, I think God could have inspired the writers to describe it that way more explicitly. This literal approach seems more in line with the intended meaning and the way ancient readers would have understood it.
2. The Consistency of Yom as a Literal Day
Throughout the Old Testament, when yom is used with a number (first day, second day, etc.), it consistently means a regular day. For instance, in Exodus 20:11, when God commands us to work for six days and rest on the seventh, He explicitly links this to His own creation week. The Sabbath command doesn't make sense as a pattern if "days" in Genesis meant "ages." This pattern of 24-hour days for work and rest is foundational in Scripture, and it's meaningful to me that God set that up from the beginning.
3. Upholding Scriptural Authority
For me, prioritizing a literal, straightforward reading of Scripture strengthens my faith in its reliability. Genesis serves as the foundation for the entire Bible, setting the stage for our understanding of sin, redemption, and God's purpose for humanity. If we start reinterpreting parts of Genesis as metaphorical or symbolic, we run the risk of undermining other foundational doctrines. Holding to a YEC view feels like a safer approach that protects the integrity of Scripture as a clear, consistent narrative.
4. Theological Implications of Sin and Death
In a young-earth view, death and decay entered creation as a result of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 teaches that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin." I believe this applies to all of creation, not just to human spiritual death. If we accept that millions of years of death and suffering occurred before Adam's fall, it implies that death was always part of God's "very good" creation, which I think diminishes the significance of sin and the power of Christ's victory over death.
5. God Created with Maturity, Not Deception
Just as God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, I believe He created the earth fully functional, with the appearance of age, yet without deception. This would mean trees created with rings, starlight reaching earth immediately, and natural systems all functioning perfectly from the start. God's creation isn't an illusion but a testament to His power to create fully and completely in an instant. This view doesn't negate science but encourages us to seek God's handiwork with trust in His creative power.
6. Science and Scripture Can Align Without Compromise
While current scientific theories point to an old earth, science is constantly advancing and revising its understanding of the world. Many scientists and researchers within the YEC community are working to provide alternative interpretations of the data, grounded in a biblical worldview. Rather than adapting Scripture to fit current scientific models, I prefer to interpret scientific findings in light of Scripture, trusting that any discrepancies may someday be resolved as we continue to understand both God's Word and His creation more deeply.
7. Faithful Witness and Trust in God's Power
Finally, my preference for a YEC view is rooted in faith. I believe God is powerful enough to create the universe in six literal days and that He communicated this truth to us simply so that people of all ages and backgrounds could understand His power and plan. While science may offer insights into how creation operates, Scripture offers us the purpose and truth behind it all. Trusting Genesis as it's written is, for me, a way of honoring God's Word without needing to reconcile it with ever-changing human theories.

In the end, I hold a YEC position because it allows me to take God at His word, maintaining a high view of Scripture and trusting that He is faithful in both His Word and His creation. This doesn't mean dismissing those who disagree, but it does mean embracing the YEC perspective as one that resonates deeply with my faith and understanding of God's truth.

Objection:  YEC: “1. A Plain Reading of Genesis
The language in Genesis is simple and direct. Each day of creation is described with the phrase "evening and morning," which seems like a clear indicator of a 24-hour day. “
RESPONSE:
1.
“Evening and morning” needs to be considered in context of the surrounding words. Context determines meaning.
“God called the light DAY, and the darkness He called NIGHT. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Genesis 1:5)
“Day” is the Hebrew word “yom.” “Day” is defined as “light.”
“Night” is the Hebrew word “layelah.” The night is defined as “darkness.”
Light is separated from darkness.
There was “evening” (“ereb”) and there was “morning” (“boger”), one day (yom).
So, yom is used in Genesis 1:5 to mean only the light (not the dark).
Then, yom is used to represent both evening and morning.
Morning begins the light. Evening ends the light.
There are no “hours” indicated anywhere in Genesis 1 and 2 (or in the OT, except Daniel).
There is no rotating earth until the 3rd yom and no sun until the 4th yom.
Thus, without a rotating earth to face the sun every 12 hours, there are no calculated earthly hours (12, 24). “Hours” is added to Scripture. “Light” defining yom is taken away from Scripture.
Hours are an assumption; eisegesis reading into Scripture words that are not there.
God tells us not to add to his words or take away from his words. (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Rev 22:18-19)
Adding words that are not found in Scripture (the exact hours) and taking away the literal words stated explicitly in Scripture (“God called the LIGHT day”/yom) is no longer a literal reading.
“God called the LIGHT DAY” (yom) with the opposite being darkness called NIGHT (layelah).
That is what the Bible literally, simply, directly, clearly states in context.
Reading into Scripture words that are not there (24 hours) and taking away words that are there (“God called the light day”) is eisegesis.
To the contrary, exegesis takes the literal words, all the stated facts, and lets those facts form the conclusion.
2.
“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4)
“Day”/yom refers to the creation of the entire universe, “earth and heaven,” from beginning to end.
For OEC, this would be 13.8 billions years agreeing with science. “Day” means “age”: the day/age of creation.
For YEC, day in this context would be the 144 hours or all six days. Now, YEC has two (2) definitions of day (144 hours for making all “earth and heaven” and 24 hours for each step of 6 parts of creation). But YEC accepts only one definition for YEC in Genesis 1 and 2, that is 24 exact hours.
The way my YEC friends deal with this contradiction is to ignore verses like Genesis 2:4.
However, “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” is important for truth.
Context determines that yom means age in Genesis 2:4.
3.
Lastly, the entire context of Genesis 2:4 including the 7th yom:
“By the seventh DAY God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh DAY from all His work which He had done.
Then God blessed the seventh DAY and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” (Gen 2:2-4)
All the words “DAY” in this passage are yom.
God “made heaven and earth” in a “day” meaning age. (Gen 2:4)
What is the 7th day?
Scripture interprets Scripture. The 7th day is defined in Hebrews 4:4-10. On the 7th day “God rested.” It is the “day” of rest, the “Sabbath rest,” from the end of creation up to today—a long period of time. Hebrews urges people to enter into God’s “day” of rest, but “it remains for some to enter it.”
Conclusion:
In Genesis 1 and 2--
--“Day” is defined as “light.” (Gen 1:5)
--“Day” has a beginning of light (morning) and an end of light (evening).
--No hours are mentioned.
--Even in the KJV, the words “hour” and “hours” do not appear in the OT, except in Daniel 3:6, 15; 4:19,33, and come from the Aramaic word “sha’ah” meaning “a brief time or moment” with no relation to earth’s rotation or the sun.
--No sun, earth, or stars are mentioned in the first “day” of light or in the 2nd yom separating water from expanse (atmosphere, heaven).
--“Earth” is created in the 3rd yom.
--“Sun, moon, stars” are created in the 4th yom.
--“Day” of rest, the 7th day, continues to the present time (an age). (Gen 2:2-3; Heb 4:4-10)
--“Day” is all of creation when God “made earth and heaven.” (Gen 2:4)
This is a literal hermeneutic using exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 where yom is found.
One of God’s Laws of Truth is “thorough investigation.” (Deut 17:4; 19:18; Luke 1:3-4)
In theology, thorough investigation includes “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deut 8:3; Matt 4:4)
You have done a thorough investigation into “Energy Production in First Life” from science.
How about a thorough investigation into “Yom used in Genesis 1 and 2” using exegesis allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture without adding words, taking away words, or inserting assumptions?

Response:  Thank you for sharing those detailed perspectives on the interpretation of "yom" in Genesis. While I respect Dr. Kaiser's scholarship, there are several important considerations regarding the interpretation of Genesis 1:

1. Context and Pattern
When we examine Genesis 1, we see a clear, repeated pattern of "evening and morning" qualifying each day. This pattern appears six times, establishing a deliberate literary and temporal framework. If these were meant to be long ages, why would God inspire Moses to use such specific diurnal language?

2. The Fourth Day Dilemma
Consider that on day four, God explicitly established the sun, moon, and stars "for signs and for seasons, and for days and years" (Genesis 1:14). This sets up our current time-keeping system. The same word "days" used here is connected directly to the astronomical cycles we use to measure 24-hour periods. This internal connection strongly suggests the days mentioned throughout the chapter refer to normal solar days.

3. Exodus Connection
Significantly, Exodus 20:11 links the creation week directly to our work week: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." If these were long ages, this comparison loses its meaning and force as a basis for the Sabbath command.

4. Early Church Understanding
While it's true that some early church fathers were open to various interpretations, their primary focus wasn't on defending specific timeframes against modern scientific theories. Their allegorical readings were typically seeking spiritual meanings alongside, not instead of, the literal meaning.

5. The Zechariah Example
Regarding Zechariah 14:7, this prophetic passage uses clearly figurative language in an eschatological context. This is quite different from the historical narrative style of Genesis 1, where the purpose is to communicate how God actually created the universe.

6. Death Before Sin
The interpretation of "yom" as long ages raises significant theological issues regarding death before sin. Romans 5:12 tells us that death entered through sin. If the days represent millions of years, this would mean death, decay, and suffering were part of God's "very good" creation before Adam's fall.

7. Scientific Interpretation
While current scientific consensus points to an old earth, we should remember that scientific interpretations change over time based on new evidence and changing paradigms. The unchanging word of God provides our foundation for understanding earth's history, and scientific evidence can be reinterpreted within this framework.

Consider this: God could have easily used terms or phrases that clearly indicated long ages if that was His intent. He could have used the Hebrew word "olam" for age, or other terms that more clearly communicate vast time periods. Instead, He chose to use "evening and morning" and numbered days in a way that most naturally communicates normal days.

Remember too that God is capable of creating a fully functional universe in six days. Just as Adam was created as an adult, other aspects of creation could have been created with the appearance of age while being chronologically young.

This isn't about ignoring science - it's about recognizing that our understanding of scientific evidence is filtered through our starting assumptions. When we start with the clear teaching of Scripture, we can develop scientific models that honor both God's Word and the evidence He has left in His creation.

Would you agree that maintaining the historical reliability of Genesis as written provides a stronger foundation for understanding both Scripture and science than reinterpreting it based on current scientific theories?

Objection:  With the deepest respect for your knowledge of science, dedication to Jesus and the Bible, and work for the kingdom of our Lord Jesus, in my last comment which began
RE: I understand..., I did not share any perspectives of men creating interpretations.
I quoted the Bible verses verbatim.
I quoted facts stated in directly Scripture and let Scripture speak for itself.
Example: "God called the LIGHT day" (yom). God defined yom as "light."
The words in those verses surrounding yom (the context) defined "yom."
Scripture interpreted what yom meant.
Better yet, would you mind telling me what yom means as defined in each one of these Bible verses?
(1) What do you see yom meaning in Genesis 1:5a?
"God called the light DAY" (yom).
What is yom in these words of God?
(2) What do you see yom meaning in all of Genesis 1:5?
"God called the light DAY [yom] and the darkness He called NIGHT.
And there was evening and there was morning, one DAY [yom]."
What do each of the two "DAYs" mean according to context of God's words?
(3) What do you see yom meaning in Genesis 2:4?
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the DAY [yom] that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
(4) What do you see yom meaning in Genesis 2:2-4; Hebrews 4:4-10?
"The seventh DAY [yom] God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh DAY [yom] and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY [yom] that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
(Gen. 2:2-4)
"Concerning the seventh day: 'God rested on the seventh day from all his works... it remains for some to enter it" (God's Sabbath day of rest)..." (Hebrews 4:4-10)
Using both Genesis and Hebrews, how do you see yom?
Can we focus on the words of God in the Bible on these three passages in Genesis without all the outside views of other men?
We agree, Scripture is the highest and final authority.
Let's define yom by Scripture including Genesis 1:5; 2:2-4; Hebrews 4:4-10 quoting Genesis 2:2?
How do you read these verses and define yom?
Sola Scriptura.
Response: 1. Literal Pattern of Days in Genesis
The use of "evening and morning" suggests a literal 24-hour day cycle. This wording, consistent with the rest of Scripture, implies a regular, daily pattern rather than symbolic ages or phases. Genesis was written to be understood clearly by all, so interpreting "yom" as a normal day aligns with how readers would have understood it historically and how it's used elsewhere in the Bible.

2. Day Four and the Sun's Establishment
While the sun wasn't created until Day Four, God established light on Day One, and He, as the Creator, can order time independently of natural mechanisms. The reference to "evening and morning" doesn't necessarily depend on the sun's presence to define a day; instead, it shows that God can provide light and sustain order even without it.

3. Exodus and the Creation-Sabbath Connection
Exodus 20:11 reinforces the idea of a six-day creation, establishing a precedent for our own work week and Sabbath rest. Since God directly links the work week to His creation timeline, this suggests He intends for us to view Genesis as a historical account of six literal days. This parallel in Exodus wouldn't hold the same meaning if creation took long ages rather than literal days.

4. Views of the Early Church Fathers
Although there were diverse views, many early church fathers interpreted Genesis in a straightforward, literal way, affirming six 24-hour days. This supports the idea that a literal understanding of Genesis has deep historical roots in the Christian faith and isn't a recent interpretation.

5. Death Before Sin
Death entering the world through sin is foundational to a biblical worldview. Romans 5:12 states that death came through Adam's sin, indicating there was no death in God's original creation. The introduction of death only after the Fall upholds God's original creation as "very good," free from pain, suffering, or death, which would not align with a pre-existing age of animal or human death.

6. Scriptural Authority Over Science
While scientific models provide insights into God's creation, they are fallible and subject to change, unlike Scripture. Observational science aligns well with a young earth interpretation when considering evidence like soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, the preservation of genetic material, and rapid geological formations. This suggests the earth might indeed be young, supporting a literal Genesis interpretation without needing to fit with secular timescales.

From a YEC perspective, taking Genesis at face value affirms God's Word as the ultimate authority on creation. Literal days in Genesis reveal not only God's power but His intentional design, providing a firm foundation for biblical doctrines that underscore salvation and a world initially created in perfection. Holding to this perspective honors both Scripture and our shared commitment to truth.

Question: May we narrow this down to one small step, one small clause, and determine what God is literally saying according to the simple and plain reading of Scripture that both you and I seek to hold to:
God says:
“God called the light, DAY, and the darkness He called NIGHT." (Genesis 1:5a)
“Day” is the Hebrew word “yom.”
“Night” is the Hebrew word “layelah.”
What is DAY/yom according to the literal reading of Genesis 1:5a?
What is NIGHT/layelah according to the literal reading of Genesis 1:5a?
Without adding words, taking away words, changing words, adding scientific or philosophical or theological assumptions not stated in this verse, how does God himself define--what words does God use to define--yom and define layelah in 1:5a?
Can we stay with the literal reading (inductive reasoning for exegesis)?

Response: Looking at Genesis 1:5a in its plainest, most straightforward reading, God Himself provides clear, direct definitions:

God defines "yom" (DAY) as "the light"
God defines "layelah" (NIGHT) as "the darkness"

The text uses a simple equivalency structure:
- Light = Day (yom)
- Darkness = Night (layelah)

These are God's own definitions, stated explicitly and unambiguously in the text. The Hebrew construction here shows God naming and defining these fundamental elements of creation. The verse demonstrates that before anything else, the Creator established these basic definitions. There's no need to import external concepts or complex interpretations - the text itself provides God's own definitions. This is particularly significant as it's the first time these terms appear in Scripture, establishing their foundational meaning. By staying strictly with what the text actually says, we see God defining day (yom) as "the light" and night (layelah) as "the darkness." This forms the basis for understanding how these terms are used throughout the rest of the creation account. Building on these clear, divine definitions from Genesis 1:5a, the literal interpretation of yom is strongly warranted:

1. First Mention Principle: This is the first occurrence of yom in Scripture, where God Himself explicitly defines it. Basic hermeneutical principles tell us that first mentions establish the fundamental meaning of terms in Scripture.
2. Direct Divine Definition: God Himself, not human authors or interpreters, provides this definition. The Creator of language and time is defining His own terms at the very beginning of creation.
3. Context of Distinction: God deliberately separates and defines light/day from darkness/night. This precise distinction shows He's establishing literal, observable phenomena, not metaphorical concepts.
4. Pattern Foundation: This definition establishes the pattern for the rest of the creation week. When yom appears in the subsequent days of creation, consistency demands we apply this same literal meaning of "light."
5. Immediate Application: The definition is immediately put into practice in the next phrase (1:5b) with "evening and morning," showing the literal cycle of day and night.
6. Phenomenological Language: God defines yom in terms of observable phenomena (light) that His creatures would experience and understand in a straightforward, literal way.

By establishing yom as literally "the light" at creation's beginning, God provides the foundation for understanding each subsequent "day" of creation week as a normal, literal day defined by light and darkness. This plain reading aligns perfectly with the rest of Scripture's treatment of creation days and provides the most natural understanding of the text.

Objection: I understand how very hard it is to step outside of old beliefs and become like a child just reading and believing God's simple, plain words at face value without adding, taking away, redefining, changing meanings, inserting assumptions, taking out of context, etc. In one old belief (a secondary teaching taught by my beloved church); I came across a passage of Jesus' words that completely contradicted my church's teaching. I was shocked. It took me a full year to reread those verses hundreds of times, to read the full passage, to read all parallel passages on the topic. and to finally come to the conclusion that the literal words of God contradicted this secondary teaching of my greatly esteemed church leaders. Then for months, I asked, will I believe God's words or men's words? I finally decided to follow God's simple words, but I still honored and loved my leaders; because like me, I understood that "all fall short of the glory of God" and make mistakes (Rom 3:23). They are human and err. God is God and is absolute truth without error.
Correct me if I am wrong by "reading between the lines," but this final paragraph seems to be going back to the literal, 24-hour, day-and-night, six-day creation:
You wrote: "By establishing yom as literally 'the light' at creation's beginning, God provides the foundation for understanding each subsequent "day" of creation week as a normal, literal day defined by light and darkness. This plain reading aligns perfectly with the rest of Scripture's treatment of creation days and provides the most natural understanding of the text."
Your first conclusion in this paragraph was that day = darkness contradicting the plain reading that "God called the light, day, and the darkness, night." You eliminated the word "night" and its definition of "darkness," and turned "day" into all three (3) night, darkness, and light (realigning it with the 24-hour belief). Changing words, changing definitions,... is not a literal reading of Scripture in Genesis 1:5.
Your second conclusion was that "each... 'day'...as a normal, literal day defined by... light and darkness" means (reading between lines) that "normal, literal day" is taking us back to the rotation of earth in relation to the sun with 24 literal hours. (Please keep in mind that the word "hours" is not found anywhere in the OT, except in the KJV English translation in Daniel using an Aramaic word that means "brief time, moment.")
Adding words in underlying assumptions:
rotation, earth, sun, 24, hours--not found in Genesis 1:5.
Taking away words and redefining them:
day = light, night, darkness.
God tells us not to add or take away from his words. (Deut 4:2; 12;32; Rev 22:18-19)
The word "foundation" in the context of your last paragraph appears to mean a total redefining of God's words by adding words and taking away words and inserting underlying assumptions in order to refit Genesis 1:5 back into 24-hour days (words not found anywhere in Scripture; words that contradict the literal, plain reading of Genesis 1:5). Please, correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are going in that direction.
Otangelo, your opening paragraph and 6 points use a literal hermeneutic for exegesis, "hitting the nail on the head." The last paragraph appears to read into Scripture (24 hours, etc.) using eisegesis pulling that nail out. The last paragraph contradicts all previous six points.
In this comment, I focused on these facts (highest level of certainty):
"God called the light, day, and the darkness, He called night." (Gen 1:5a)
In my next comment, I would like to put on the table (lower level of certainty) one possible explanation defining "evening and morning" primarily in the fuller context of both Genesis 1:4 and 1:5 and secondarily bringing science temporarily back into the picture.
However, I hope you will separate this comment from my next comment because until we can, at least consider the possibility of a literal interpretation of Gen 1:4 and 1:5, bringing up science will lead us back into nonliteral explanations.

Response: The Genesis 1 creation account presents some challenges, as the language used does not always align neatly with our modern scientific frameworks. As you noted, terms like "day," "evening," and "morning" may not correspond exactly to our 24-hour cycle. Rather than force the text to fit a preconceived notion, I believe the wisest approach is to carefully consider the words on their own terms within their literary and historical context.
My previous points about the significance of the term "yom" (day) were not meant to redefine or add to Scripture, but rather to highlight how the biblical authors themselves seem to have understood these creation "days." The consistent witness of the rest of the Bible is that these were literal, sequential days, even if they do not match our modern expectations.
I recognize there is room for humble disagreement on these matters. However, I would encourage you to prayerfully hold fast to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, while also being open to what the text itself is communicating, rather than superimposing our own assumptions. The goal should be to align our understanding with God's clear, inspired word, even when it challenges our preconceptions.
I'm happy to continue exploring this topic with you further, but I believe it's important to start from a place of reverence for the biblical text and a willingness to let it speak for itself.

Objection: Looking at Gen 1:5a PART 2
Considering the meaning of “evening and morning” in relationship to each yom (day).
GENESIS 1:3-5
3 God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God SEPARATED the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
(Genesis 1:3-5)
The main point of this passage (Gen 1:3-5) is separation; separation of light from darkness.
Evening is the threshold, the border, the entrance to darkness.
Evening is always first, because before the creation of light (or of anything else), there was only darkness (nothingness).
Darkness is phenomenally defined as seeing nothing.
Suppose that darkness represents nothingness.
Nothing existed before God created anything and eventually everything.
Science
Imagine nothingness (represented by darkness).
God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light chasing away the darkness.
In the state of nothingness, a singularity appeared exploding out light in all directions (the Big Bang) that travelled at 300 million meters per second at 1000 trillion degrees Celsius just a tiny fraction of a second after that explosion.
Can you imagine the light (energy) chasing away the darkness (nothingness)?
Light is crossing and destroying the threshold of darkness.
Creation is crossing and destroying the threshold of nothingness.
“Evening” represents the threshold of darkness, of nothingness. It comes first.
“Morning” represents the threshold of invading light, of light and energy per se at first, but also transitioning into matter and energy over time. It comes second.
Every yom has evening (nothingness) first and then morning (creation) coming next.
As creation invaded nothingness,
so light invaded darkness,
so morning (2nd) invaded evening (1st).
Yom 1:
God created the light which invaded and took over the darkness of nothingness.
Yom 2:
God created elements, molecules, more complex matter in the expanse of space and waters replacing nothingness without matter.
Yom 3:
God created matter in the form of earth with land, waters, plants replacing the nothingness of physical objects. (Assumption: Earth was covered by a thick canopy of clouds so celestial objects could not be seen, phenomenological viewpoint.)
Yom 4:
God created sun, moon, stars invading the nothingness of space.
(Assumption: From phenomenological viewpoint, when the clouds dispersed at the flood, then all celestial objects came into view.)
Yom 5:
God created animals inserting living souls into an absence (nothingness) of living beings.
Yom 6:
God created man and woman inserting them into an absence (nothingness) of a world without anyone made in God’s image.
“And there was evening [darkness, nothingness, devoid of beings in God’s image] and there was morning [God’s creation of humans], the sixth yom.” (Gen 1:31)
Now, a really important point: there is no “evening” and no “morning” on the seventh day.
Why?
Because there is no more nothingness (darkness, evening) to be invaded and replaced by creation (light, matter, morning). Creation has filled the universe. Nothingness does not exist.
The words “evening and morning” never appear again in Genesis after the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1. From Genesis 2 throughout the rest of the creation story, and in fact throughout Genesis (except Gen 49:27 having nothing to do with creation), “evening and morning” are not found.
The absence of “evening and morning” in the seventh DAY (yom) work against the 24-hour view defining “day” as “24-hours defined by evening and morning.”
“God called the light yom, and the darkness He called layelah. And there was evening and there was morning, one yom” when God was replacing nothingness with everything. (Gen. 1:5)
With each yom, the evening (darkness, nothingness) was chased away and replaced with the morning (light, matter, energy; creation). Thus, evening is always mentioned first because it is replaced by morning, and there is no evening or morning on the 7th DAY (yom) because nothingness no longer exists, and creation is complete.
Does this explanation of "evening and morning" seem reasonable?

Response: First, the text is wonderfully clear and straightforward - God established a pattern of evening and morning that defines our normal days. When Moses wrote Genesis, his original readers would have understood these terms in their plain, ordinary meaning. The Hebrew words 'erev' (evening) and 'boqer' (morning) are used throughout Scripture to denote regular 24-hour days.

The attempt to redefine "evening" as nothingness and "morning" as creation seems to impose foreign concepts onto the text. The Bible tells us God created everything in six literal days - He spoke, and it was so. There's no need to stretch the meaning of "evening and morning" to accommodate vast ages or the Big Bang theory.

Consider these points:
1. Genesis 1:14-19 explicitly connects these days to the sun, moon, and stars marking time
2. Exodus 20:11 reaffirms the six-day creation when establishing the Sabbath pattern
3. The numerical qualifiers (first day, second day, etc.) indicate normal, sequential days

Regarding the absence of evening and morning on the seventh day - this actually points to the completeness of God's work, not some metaphorical meaning of the previous days. God's rest continues as a model for our weekly Sabbath.

The beauty of Genesis is its clarity. We don't need to reinterpret it through the lens of current scientific theories. Instead, we can trust that God has given us an accurate, historical account of how and when He created everything.

Objection: RE “The Genesis 1 creation account presents some challenges, as the language used does not always align neatly with our modern scientific frameworks.”
Response:
I assume you are speaking to the creation of earth with plants in the third day and the creation of the sun on the 4th day. Plants can’t live without sun.
Phenomenologically (which is the study of objects from direct, empirical experience), if humankind cannot see the sun because of thick cloud coverage until after the flood, then earth comes first and the sun comes second; this would appear to be the order to Noah’s point of observation. His story was passed down to Moses who wrote Genesis.
Genesis 7:11-12
“In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and THE FLOODGATES OF THE SKY were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.”
Before Noah and the flood, clouds could have covered planet earth like clouds cover the planet Venus or Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The majority of planets in our solar system are covered with clouds and observation of the sun is not possible from below those clouds.
Phenomenologically speaking, the order of Genesis creation is correct from direct observation (not scientific study).
RE “Rather than force the text to fit a preconceived notion, I believe the wisest approach is to carefully consider the words on their own terms within their literary and historical context.”
Yes, but “the words on their own” is the plain, simple, literal reading of those words in their context.
Yom (day) in Genesis 1:4 and 5 is clear:
“God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Gen. 1:4-5)
The context of day (yom) directly states that (1) the light is day, (2) the light was “separated” from the darkness, “(3) darkness had a different name. Those are simple facts.
To change those facts around (for the sake of exterior linguistics or historical assumptions) and say
(1) Day is darkness
(2) Day is night
(3) God did not separate darkness and light, did not separate day from night
contradicts the stated text.
The 24-hour view includes the definition of day as darkness, day as night, and day synthesizing light and darkness in one day—ideas which contradict the plain, literal reading of Scripture.
Historically, Moses lived 3,400 years ago and he wrote guided by the Holy Spirit truths that could be understood for centuries by the nation of Israel (in the OT which does not have the word “hour” or “hours” because the circumference of the earth (24,000 miles) had not been divided into 1,000-mile segments for an hour each segments making 24-hour days.
The circumference of the earth was discovered around 240 B.C. by the Greek astronomer and mathematician, Eratosthenes.
The Greeks and Romans adopted the 12-hour day and night system from the Babylonians. The concept of a 24-hour day became more widespread in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but it wasn't consistently used by all cultures.
Moses did not write Genesis the point of view of the Greeks or Babylonians but from the Holy Spirit centuries earlier and what he saw with his eyes (a biblical Law of Truth).
The 24-hour view for creation is an anachronism.
24-hour divisions of time did not exist among the Israelites when Moses wrote Genesis and the word “hour” (calculated using 24) is not in the OT.
There is no evidence (that I can find) that the biblical authors understand yom (day) as 24 hours.
So, historically speaking my theory that “evening and morning”—phenomenologically speaking as evening being the threshold of darkness (darkness or nothingness coming first) and morning being the threshold of light (light and other matter coming second through God’s creation), still seems to fit both the literal words, the linguistic analysis, and the historical context from Adam through Moses who wrote Genesis better than the more modern 24-hour view.
I rejoice that we both “hold fast to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture while being open to what the text itself is communicating” in the context with the literal words of God.
I agree that “the goal should be to align our understanding with God’s clear, inspired word” but also, God does not contradict himself, (“day” is defined as light and “night” is defined as darkness: “day” is not darkness in Gen 1:5a, and to day is night and darkness as well as light contradicts God’s words—letting the biblical text speak for itself). The plain, literal reading of the text in the immediate context holds higher evidentiary weight than redefining those words to fit an exterior doctrine.
RE “The consistent witness of the rest of the Bible is that these were literal, sequential days, even if they do not match our modern expectations.”
Please, may we only stay within the OT.
Would you mind quoting for me (or at least giving me references) of the “consistent witness” verses in the OT proving the 24-hour day?

Response:  The Genesis account doesn’t conflict with the appearance of plants on Day 3 and the creation of the sun on Day 4. Since the days are each literal, consecutive 24-hour days, plants would only experience a brief period before the sun appeared. In this view, the temporary absence of the sun for less than a full day would not impact their survival, as they would only need to wait until Day 4 for sunlight. Additionally, God’s sustaining power could ensure their wellbeing even in the brief period without it. About the interpretation of “day” (Hebrew *yom*) in Genesis 1:4-5, the text makes a clear distinction by pairing “day” with light and “night” with darkness, then defining a “day” as marked by evening and morning. These details point to a regular day-and-night cycle, emphasizing the division of light from darkness. In the plainest reading of the text, this understanding is reinforced, as it introduces each day in the same way: “And there was evening, and there was morning.” Historically, while the precise concept of a 24-hour day (based on Earth’s circumference) emerged later, the Genesis account reflects the natural cycle of day and night as directly observed. The rhythm of light and darkness would have been understood in this way even in early Israelite culture, without needing a specific hourly measurement. Rather than reading modern constructs into the text, this approach honors the original language and setting in which it was written, relying on the straightforward interpretation that each “day” corresponds to a normal, sequential day-and-night cycle. When examining the consistent witness of the Old Testament, the theme of a literal six-day creation is reinforced. Other passages, such as Exodus 20:11, affirm that “in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,” suggesting that the understanding of a sequential, literal creation week was integral to Israel’s worldview and practice, specifically in the observance of the Sabbath. Taking the text on its own terms suggests that Genesis is describing a sequence of ordinary days. This reading supports the clear, inspired word as intended in the original context, letting the plain, historical sense of the passage speak for itself without requiring reinterpretation.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Objection: RE: “A pattern of evening and morning… defines our normal days.”
Response:
Very respectfully, that pattern does not define the “normal days” for 99.9% of the people on earth, except for “graveyard shift” workers who begin their day at 7 pm (evening), go to work at 11 pm, and work until 7 am (morning) then go home and sleep during daylight.
I once worked the graveyard shift (evening till morning) at Dunkin’ Donuts fast food restaurant to help pay my way through college. Those were my normal waking hours, but there was no light, no day, and the streets were empty. Evening to morning is not normal.
RE: “When Moses wrote Genesis, his original readers would have understood these terms in their plain, ordinary meaning. The Hebrew words 'erev' (evening) and 'boqer' (morning) are used throughout Scripture to denote regular 24-hour…”
Response:
The word “hour” is not in the OT and not in Moses’ writing. The number twenty-four (24) does not show up until the book of Samuel, and never referring to hours or time.
The only place in the world where there is a 12-hour day and 12-hour night is on the equator. In the temperate and artic zones, the number of hours of daylight and darkness are continually shifting. In December in the temperate zone, we have 8 hours of daylight—using the circumference of the earth divided into 24 parts, which the OT ancient writers did not have.
When Moses wrote Genesis, his original readers would have understood that day (yom) meant light and night (layelah) meant darkness (Gen 1:5). They knew that in the darkness, they saw nothing. This is posteriori knowledge.
Posteriori knowledge refers to empirical, experience-based knowledge.
In total darkness (the total absence of light), nothing can be seen by the human eye.
Seeing nothing in darkness is a universal experience for all humans across all nations and all history: posteriori knowledge.
Humans do not use echolocation (sound waves) like dolphins or infrared (heat) detection like snakes; humans require photons (electromagnetic waves within a limited spectrum) to see something.
Without light, in total darkness, all humans see nothing.
Equating absolute darkness with seeing nothing is not just my personal experience; it is the universal experience of all human beings.
RE & Response: “When Moses wrote Genesis, his original readers would have understood these terms in their plain, ordinary meaning. The Hebrew words 'erev' (evening) and 'boqer' (morning) are used throughout Scripture to denote” the end of light (evening, threshold of darkness, seeing nothing) and the beginning of light (morning, threshold of light/day, seeing God’s creation around them). There was no mathematical calculation diving time day and night into “regular 24-hour” until around 250 B.C. when a Greek astronomer/mathematician discovered the circumference of the earth. “24-hour days” is an anachronism. It is not in the OT>
On the first day of creation, there was only light energy, no matter (no galaxies, solar systems, or earth with a 24-hour rotation). God said, “Let there be light” (Big Bang) and light energy existed but no matter. “Evening” was commonly understood as the threshold of darkness in Moses’ time as well as our time. “Morning” was commonly understood as the threshold of light/day in Moses’ day. Since the morning is second, the morning is overcoming, supplanting the evening.

Response: Your objections about evening and morning patterns misunderstand the fundamental nature of God's created order. The text clearly establishes a divine pattern that transcends modern work schedules or geographical variations. When Genesis 1 repeats "there was evening and there was morning," it's establishing God's authoritative framework for time itself, not merely describing human experience.

The argument about hours being absent from the OT is a red herring. The text conveys regular, literal days regardless of how ancient peoples measured them. Moses used terms his readers understood precisely because God accommodated His revelation to human understanding. The Hebrew words erev and boqer consistently refer to a normal day cycle throughout Scripture - this is clear from their usage in contexts involving sacrifices, priestly duties, and historical narratives.

Your point about varying daylight hours actually strengthens the creation account's reliability. God established these cycles before creating the sun (Day 4), showing His sovereignty over time itself. The first three days were marked by the divine light He created, demonstrating that these patterns don't depend on astronomical bodies but on God's decree.

The focus on "seeing nothing" in darkness misses the deeper theological significance. The evening-morning pattern teaches us about God's character - bringing order from chaos, light from darkness, and establishing rhythms that reflect His nature. This isn't just about human perception but about divine design.

Your mention of the Big Bang and light energy without matter reads modern scientific concepts back into the text. Genesis 1 presents a clear chronological sequence where God created through direct, supernatural acts. The text simply doesn't support the notion of billions of years of cosmic evolution.

The pattern of evening and morning defines a literal 24-hour day because that's what the text plainly teaches. Adding complexity about Greek astronomy or human work schedules doesn't change the straightforward meaning Moses intended and his original readers understood.


Yom - long periods of time, or literal days in Genesis ? Semddd11

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum