Archivedbad theology of Dr Ross.twohumble wrote:Take this quote from Dr. Gleason Archer
"On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer's conviction that yom [the Hebrew word for day] in Genesis one could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day,"
Archer is fluent (or was, he passed away I believe, very recently) in Hebrew, OT Hebrew, and over 30 other ancient languages. He was one of the main contributors to the NASB translation, which is still thought of as one of the best translations available today.
In addition, the commentaries on Ereb, and Boqer, are likewise useful for understanding the bad exegesis of the YEC mentality. Please take time to read some OT word studies with commentary on these terms.
Consider this quote from Matt Perman
Hugh Ross, an excellent scientist and Christian, has provided very convincing arguments that the days of Genesis one are not intended as 24 hour periods of time. Since it is his work that has been so convincing to me on this issue, I wish to lay out, in my own way, many of his arguments. I will also supplement them with much of the evidence I have gained from other sources. I also wish to point out that, even if the days of Genesis one are indeed 24 hour periods, it still would not follow that the earth is young. This is because Bible scholar John Sailhamer has recently argued a good case that if the days are 24 hour periods, they can be solidly understood as recounting the specific renovating of the promise land to make it suitable for man's inhabitation. So, on his view, the creation of the whole universe is stated in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," but the rest of the chapter deals with a much later time when God made the earth suitable for man's inhabitation. For those who are interested in looking into this view more, I recommend his book Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Boks, 1996).
and
The unusual syntax of the sentences referring to the creation days
In these sentences, we would have expected the linking verb (were) to appear only once in the Hebrew, reading "and were evening and morning day X," but instead the linking verb appears twice and it reads, "and was evening and was morning day X." Hugh Ross recognizes that "If `day X' were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form," and goes on to point out that this "is clearly a departure from simple and ordinary expression. It creates an ambiguity. ...[this] suggests that `day' here is to be taken in some unusual manner."[10] If the expression "evening" and "morning" were meant to define the "day" as a twenty-four hour period, we would not expect to find this structure of the sentences.
I suppose we can engage in pick your commentary and Bible scholar: Gen 1:2-5
It is true the morning and evening of the first three days were not produced by the rising and setting of the sun, since the sun was not yet created; but the constantly recurring interchange of light and darkness, which produced day and night upon the earth, cannot for a moment be understood as denoting that the light called forth from the darkness of chaos returned to that darkness again, and thus periodically burst forth and disappeared. The only way in which we can represent it to ourselves, is by supposing that the light called forth by the creative mandate, "Let there be," was separated from the dark mass of the earth, and concentrated outside or above the globe, so that the interchange of light and darkness took place as soon as the dark chaotic mass began to rotate, and to assume in the process of creation the form of a spherical body. The time occupied in the first rotations of the earth upon its axis cannot, indeed, be measured by our hour-glass; but even if they were slower at first, and did not attain their present velocity till the completion of our solar system, this would make no essential difference between the first three days and the last three, which were regulated by the rising and setting of the sun.
(Note: Exegesis must insist upon this, and not allow itself to alter the plain sense of the words of the Bible, from irrelevant and untimely regard to the so-called certain inductions of natural science. Irrelevant we call such considerations, as make interpretation dependent upon natural science, because the creation lies outside the limits of empirical and speculative research, and, as an act of the omnipotent God, belongs rather to the sphere of miracles and mysteries, which can only be received by faith (Heb 11:3); and untimely, because natural science has supplied no certain conclusions as to the origin of the earth, and geology especially, even at the present time, is in a chaotic state of fermentation, the issue of which it is impossible to foresee.)
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
Gen 1:3-5
6. That this was the first day's work, and a good day's work it was. The evening and the morning were the first day. The darkness of the evening was before the light of the morning, that it might serve for a foil to it, to set it off, and make it shine the brighter. This was not only the first day of the world, but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning. In him the day-spring from on high has visited the world; and happy are we, for ever happy, if that day-star arise in our hearts.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |