Good comments Dennis. All that is needed is consistent exegesis in order to be convinced that the Genesis narrative records a literal 6 day creation. I would argue, however, that they don't have to be 24 hour days. This can make us lose credibility. For instance, a day today is not 24 hours, that's why we have leap year. And the earth has been slowing down since at least the flood, unless something has affected it to make it turn faster that we don't know about. If, as some think, the earth was enclosed by an ice canopy before the flood, then it is entirely possible that the cataclysmic events that lead to the flood could have changed the rotation of the earth. So, I leave the number of hours alone. A day could have been 23 hours, it could have been 30. Frankly, I don't care. Scripture makes it clear that it was literally an evening and a morning. That's all we really need to know. Here's some more information that helps, from a purely exegetical perspective.
Quote:
To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:
A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year. - A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”
- A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
- Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
- Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12
- In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13
- The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
- There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that
So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16 In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said,
If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.17 Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? - Answers in Genesis |
And Aaron, the dinosaurs definitely were created during this time, and most of them likely perished in the flood. The change in atmospheric conditions would have caused incredible changes in temperature, including instant freezing at the poles, which accounts for woolly mammoths being discovered with undigested food in the stomachs and whale fossils vertically embedded in the layers of earth that "scientists" claim represent millions of years.
In regard to Job 40, it very well could have been a dinosaur. And Job 41 may very well be referring to a dragon. I don't know. However, I will not dare to stand in judgment over that which God has put in judgment over me, namely, Scripture. It says what it says, and if I can't figure it out then it means I'm limited in my understanding. Any claim that God's Word doesn't mean exactly what it says presupposes that
- we have all the information we need
- we can correctly interpret all the information we have
- we can correctly apply our interpretation
Simply put, the old earth hypothesis is untenable both Scripturally and scientifically. Any effort to say otherwise is reminiscent of the words of that old Deceiver, "Hath God surely said...?"
This, as you have alluded to, comes from my admittedly literal and dispensational hermeneutic. If one is true to the dispensational hermeneutic then they have not choice but to be joined at the hip with the 6 literal day creation; regardless of what Scoffield or anyone else says about it.
Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.