WHAT ARE THE CREATION DAYS?

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Strong disagreement and even division exists among Christians on the
meaning of the Hebrew word YOM. Scholars within the Jewish and Muslim
faiths are likewise divided on the topic. These three monotheistic
faiths accept Genesis as divinely inspired, and YOM is translated
"day" in the Creation account of Genesis Chapter One. At issue is the
time duration in each of the Creation Days in Genesis 1. Some believe
YOM embraces an indefinite (geologic) time period (old earth), while
others maintain YOM must be a 24 hour day (young earth).

The disagreement presents a dilemma. An old earth supports
evolutionary time periods; a young earth invites ridicule from
science. Each view is thus seen by many orthodox Jews and Muslims as
problematic, and by evangelistic Christians as sometimes impeding the
Gospel. But is the confusion that YOM seems to create in God's Word?
Or does it stem from the assumptions we bring to its interpretation?
 

2. WHY DO SOME BELIEVERS REJECT A YOUNG EARTH?

Widely published scientific age measurements are incompatible with the
ten thousand year earth age claimed by advocates of a 24 hour meaning
for YOM. In addition, scientific testimony admitted into evidence by
the U.S. Supreme Court ridiculed the "Scientific Creationism" that
some Christians allege proves the earth is young. By saying that the
Bible requires a recent creation, young earth Christians are accused
of fostering the false perception that science discredits Scripture.
It is then held that since science is widely accepted, the Bible as a
source of truth is rejected, and its Authority is lost. Such rejection
would be serious because it discredits the Bible's moral teachings, as
well as its warnings regarding impending Judgment for wrong behavior.
 

3. WHY DO SOME BELIEVERS REJECT AN OLD EARTH?

Virtually all scientists agree that our universe and planet earth are
old. Nonetheless some believers question, and even challenge this
conclusion. But for the most part their objections do not arise from
science. Instead, they come from what these believers understand the
Bible to say. Young earth believers not only question long ages, but
also charge that since evolutionary processes require great time
periods to be credible, the "old earth" believers are actually aiding
and abetting the materialistic dogma that compromises Bible acceptance.

Young earth believers assert that a young age for the earth discredits
materialism, rebuts evolution, and thus points to a Creator. Young
earth believers further argue that by denying a recent Creation, old
earth believers disallow powerful arguments against an evolutionary
world view that disowns God and disclaims purpose to human life. Some
go so far as to even charge that if the earth is young, then the view
that it is old constitutes a serious error with serious ominous moral
consequences. One group has even taken their case to some churches.
 

4. HOW DO "OLD EARTH" BELIEVERS REPLY?

Old earth believers are not without answers. They say that although
the earth is considerably older than ten thousand years, it need not
be billions. Instead, some of them argue that geologic evidences teach
tens or possibly hundreds of millions of years for earth's age, but
not billions-- in which case they say evolution is still impossible.

Old earth believers also assert that there is no valid scientific data
for a ten thousand year earth, and that to claim otherwise is morally
reprehensible because it serves to discredit valid religious teachings
that promise eternal outcomes. Some have even charged that the
doctrine of a young earth compromises biblical inerrancy. Gleason
Archer has written, for example, that if YOM is understood to be a
literal 24 hour day, then the Bible contains errors. An excerpt of his
paper: "A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas
Relating to Natural Science" is available on this website.
 

5. HOW DO "YOUNG EARTH" BELIEVERS REPLY?

Many young earth believers reject the abundant and widely published
scientific data that indicates the earth is old. Instead, they offer a
list of at least 76 natural processes they allege show that the earth
is young. However, the processes that they say prove the earth is only
thousands of years old have been carefully examined by researchers
active in various scientific disciplines. Virtually all of these
scientists conclude that young earth claims are without merit, and
that there is no valid scientific evidence that shows that the earth
is young. Young earth believers reply that these scientists are wrong,
that their conclusions rest on faulty assumptions, and that for the
most part their agenda is to perpetuate an evolutionary world view.
This topic is discussed in my paper: "The Question of Earth's Age" and
is available for download from this website.
 

6. WHAT OTHER VIEWS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO EXPLAIN YOM?

The "young earth" view understands the Hebrew word YOM in Genesis One
to be a literal 24 hour day. This has been called the "HOUR - DAY"
theory. The "old earth" view where YOM denotes an indeterminate time
period is known as the "DAY - AGE" theory. However, at least four
other theories have been proposed:

* DAY - BREAK ... This view holds that each YOM is a literal 24
hour day, but that each of the 24 hour days is
broken by long indeterminate periods of time.

* DAY - MAN ... This is the idea that the Creation account was
narrated to Moses by God over six 24 hour
days, but that the Creation itself occurred
over long, extended periods of time.

* DAY - GAP ... This theory asserts that each YOM is a literal
24 hour day, but that all were preceded by a
long, indefinite time gap during which God's
perfect Creation fell into ruin, but after
which God restored it.

* LIT - DAY ... Here YOM is understood to be a "literary" day;
it is a poetic device-- not a measure of time.

Day 1 God creates light;
Day 4 it starts functioning as a time keeper.

Day 2 God separates waters with a firmament;
Day 5 the waters and firmament teem with life.

Day 3 God makes land appear;
Day 6 the land teams with life.
 

7. ARE THESE VIEWS BIBLICALLY JUSTIFIED?

Both young and old earth believers use the Bible to justify their
positions. For example, young earth believers appeal to the common
understanding of a 24 hour day evident from a plain reading of the
Genesis One text, while old earth believers conclude that a 24 hour
day forces inconsistencies with Genesis 2 that compromise inerrancy.
But does the 24 hour day arise from the language of the Bible-- or
from the assumptions young earth believers bring to the Bible? As to
old earth believers-- are are the inconsistencies that they cite
real-- or or these the artifacts of a preconceived agenda?
 

8. WHAT DID ANCIENT SCHOLARS UNDERSTAND YOM TO MEAN?

The question as to the meaning of YOM has been the subject of study
by scholars for centuries. But when we ask what they understood YOM to
mean, we do not find the divided opinion one might have expected. To
the contrary, many appear to have been of one mind. For example Philo
and Josepus, two 1st Century Jewish scholars, believed that the
Creation Days denoted long time periods. Irenaeus, a 2nd Century
scholar likewise understood YOM to mean a long period of time. In the
3rd Century, Origen believed likewise, as did Basil (Bishop of
Caesarea) in the 4th Century. In the 5th Century, St. Augustine said
that the Creation Days "were not sun divided days ... but God divided
days". Even the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas held YOM to be a long time
period, as did C.I Scofield and A.H. Strong in more modern times.
Since YOM is not divided into 24 parts anywhere in the Old Testament,
how is it that protestant evangelicals came to view YOM as denoting a
24 hour day? It occurred at the time of the reformation. A more
complete discussion of the topic can be found in Appendix I:
"ALLEGATIONS THAT CLAIM CREATION DAYS ARE SHORT TIME PERIODS" under
the heading: "ALLEGATION: THE BIBLE TEACHES A RECENT CREATION"
 

9. WHAT MEANING DID GOD INTEND FOR YOM?

The Genesis text indicates that God defined YOM not in terms of time,
but in terms of light viz., "God called the light YOM" (Genesis 1:5).
Thus YOM is the name God gives to light. This means that YOM is the
label used by God to describe light. Therefore God does not define YOM
as a measure of time, but as a means to identify light. It is the name
God gives to light. Genesis 1:5 "HE CALLED THE LIGHT YOM."
 

10. WHAT IS THE DURATION OF YOM?

Evidently the answer is that YOM persists over the same duration as
the light it describes. It exists whenever light exists. The reason is
that God names the light YOM. Therefore when we have light we have what
God calls YOM and when we have YOM we have the name God uses for light.
 

11. DOES GOD TELL US YOM IS NOT 24 HOURS?

God clearly tells us in Genesis 1:5 that He called the light "YOM".
What does this mean? It means that YOM is the label God assigned to
light, and if YOM means "light", then darkness plays no role in what
YOM means, and how YOM is used. Stated differently, If YOM is the name
God gives to light in Genesis Chapter One, then YOM contains no
darkness. Nonetheless many believers appear not to accept the plain
meaning of this text, as evidenced by the following five theories
discussed above:
Day - Break
Day - Man
Day - Gap
Lit - Day
Hour - Day

Each of these theories impute darkness to YOM. The only theory that
can be reconciled with Bible revelation that YOM is the name God gives
to light is the Day - Age theory. In one way or another, each of these
other five human theories have YOM containing darkness-- despite the
self-evident fact that God called the light YOM, and that He called
the darkness something else. Since the Bible teaches that humans are
fallen creatures, it is no surprise that our day contains darkness.

Although YOM has no darkness, our 24 hour civil day has both light and
darkness. But God's Day only has light. The reason our day has both
light and darkness is that our day is a civil day i.e., it is from
sunrise to sunrise, or from sunset to sunset. Either way it contains a
period of darkness. But this is not true of YOM. Why? Because God
tells us in Genesis 1:5 that YOM is the name He gave to light. The
Creation Days are God's Days. God is Holy and His Days only have light.
One group has published allegations that they say shows YOM must be a
24 hour day. The more prominent of these are discussed in Appendix I.
 

12. WHAT DO "EVENING" AND "MORNING" MEAN IN GENESIS CHAPTER ONE?

If YOM is the name that God gives to light (Genesis 1:5), what is the
meaning of the phrase "evening and morning" in Genesis Chapter One?
Does not evening and morning show that YOM is an ordinary day? The
answer is no. We know that God called the light YOM, and we know that
light has no darkness. The confusion here lies in the English words
used to translate the Hebrew words EREB (evening) and BOQER (morning)
found in Genesis Chapter One.

* Evening <EREB> comes from the prime root <ARAB>
which means to close over, or to cover prior action.

* Morning <BOQER> comes from prime root <BAQAR>
which means to plow open, as unto something new.

Appendix II shows that the Hebrew words <EREB> and <BOQER> occur in
Psalm 90 as metaphors. These words in the psalm are the *identical*
words in Genesis Chapter One used to delineate the Creation Days. If
these are not literal days in Psalm 90, why should we force them to be
literal days in Genesis Chapter One? Moreover, WHEN APPLIED TO DIVINE
ACTIVITY, <EREB> AND <BOQER> (the words for evening and morning) ARE
NEVER USED IN A LITERAL SENSE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. In other words
THEY ARE NEVER USED TO IMPOSE boundaries on God's Work.

Instead, they are used to REVEAL THE CESSATION AND ADVENT OF DIVINE
WORK. But they are never used to pigeon-hole Divine Activity into
human time partitions. Moreover, when we force these words into a
literal English meaning, it yields a contradiction in terms: If God is
the Creator of time, how can the finite time that an infinite God
creates be understood to compartmentalize its infinite Creator?
Appendix III illustrates why some of the significant words used in the
opening chapters of the Book of Genesis cannot be literal, and
presents material that shows Genesis contains figurative language.

When we force God's activity into our 24 hour day, we squeeze the
infinite and divine into finite intervals to which humans are bound.
This amounts to understanding Divine Activity in human terms. How can
the time which God creates compartmentalize the activity of its
infinite Creator into finite human intervals? Yet this is exactly what
occurs when we view God's Days of Creation as 24 hour periods. We
cause the time God creates to determine the duration that God works.

Appendix II contains biblical references that indicate the Creation
Days are long periods, and that to understand these as 24 hour
intervals yields inconsistencies with other parts of Scripture. It is
noteworthy that in non-English speaking countries, the question
regarding the meaning of YOM is far less problematic.
 

13. HOW IS YOM USED THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT?

The Hebrew word YOM is used three ways throughout the Old Testament.
Its meaning primarily depends upon the context of the passage, and
whether YOM is describing human, natural or divine action. If human or
natural action is at play, YOM usually denotes a civil day. Otherwise
it is used to express span of light or a period of action, However the
Old Testament never divides YOM into 24 parts. The finest division of
a day is in four parts (found in Nehemiah 9:3).

The 24 hour day is a human doctrine because it is not found anywhere
in the Bible. Civil days are from sunrise to sunrise, or sunset to
sunset. Some may ask: What is the difference? The answer lies in the
revelation found in Genesis 1:14-19 regarding the "greater light", the
"lesser light", and the "stars". By carefully examining what this text
actually says (rather than what is commonly believed that it says),
and by using the term "civil day" (rather than "24 hour day") as one
of YOM's three possible Old Testament meanings, it can be shown that
YOM as used in Genesis Chapter One cannot be a civil (24 hour) day.
 

14. CAN YOM MEAN A "CIVIL DAY" IN GENESIS CHAPTER ONE?

A civil day is, by definition, sunrise to sunrise, or sunset to sunset.
This means that if a civil day exists, the sun is functioning as a
timekeeper. But Genesis 1:14 reveals that on the fourth Creation Day God said,

"let there be lights in firmament of heavens to divide day from night;
and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years"

Let us make two observations regarding this text:

i) The lights divide day from night. This means that the day "YOM"
continues to be only light. The Bible makes this fact clear in
Genesis 1:5 where YOM is the name God gives to light.

ii) Genesis 1:14 reveals that the sun begins to function as a
timekeeper on Creation Day 4. This means that sunrise to sunrise
(or sunset to sunset) comes into being on Creation Day 4. God
thus reveals that a civil day does not exist prior to Creation
Day 4. The reason is that if it did, the sun would behave as a
timekeeper prior to Creation Day 4. But Genesis 1:14 reveals
that this doesn't occur until Creation Day 4. Therefore Creation
Days 1, 2 and 3 cannot be civil days (they cannot be 24 hours).

Again, the reason is that the Bible reveals that the Creation
Day 4 is when the sun begins to function as a timekeeper. But if
this be so, then Creation Days 1, 2 and 3 cannot be civil days.
Otherwise the sun would function as a timekeeper before Creation
Day 4. Since YOM has the same meaning for each Creation Day, it
means YOM cannot mean a civil day and, therefore, must either
mean a span of light or a period of action (the only other
meanings granted to YOM in the Old Testament). These meanings
are consistent because:

(1) Genesis 1:5 says YOM is the name God gives to light, and:
(2) Whereas YOM contains no darkness, civil days do.

NOTE: For a more complete discussion of Genesis 1:14-19, please see:
Sun, Moon and Stars (available for download on this website).

Two other points are noteworthy:

(a) The light described in verses 14, 15 & 17 does not appear in the
heavens, but in the firmament of the heavens. Since Genesis 1:20
identifies this firmament as the place where birds fly, verses
14-19 show that light from the sun, moon and stars made its
appearance in our atmosphere.

Since the size of earth compared to the sun is as a pea to
basketball, the Bible is not saying the sun was created in our
atmosphere where birds fly, but instead reveals that God made
sunlight and moonlight appear in our atmosphere. Genesis 1:15
further reveals that on Creation Day 4 this light fell upon and
reached earth's surface where it divided day from night for humankind.

(b) Note also what Genesis 1:16 teaches about stars. This text reveals
that God made the greater light (sun) to govern the day, and the
lesser light (moon) to govern the night. But the text then goes on
to say, "He made the stars also". However the context is, "to
govern". This text does not say that God made stars on Day 4, but
that 'He made the stars also to govern'"

This text is not saying that stars were created on Day 4, but
rather like the sun and moon they were made to govern i.e., like
the sun and moon, they were made to function-- not for seasons,
days and years, but for signs. When does the Bible say stars were
created? Genesis 1:1 reveals, "In the beginning God created the
heaven (stars & sun) and the earth". A complete discussion of this
topic including answers to many questions typically asked on this
topic can be found in the paper: "Sun, Moon and Stars - Were they
or their light created on Creation Day 4 ?"
 
 

SUMMARY OVERVIEW
----------------

In summary, two biblical reasons exist that show why YOM cannot be and
should not be understood to mean a civil i.e., 24 hour day:

1. God says so when, Genesis 1:5, He declares that it only
contains light. YOM is the name God gives to light!
Human reasoning not withstanding, this is the meaning
that God assigns to the Creation YOM (Day) in Genesis 1.

2. God says so again when, in Genesis 1:14-19 He reveals
that the sun does not function as a time keeper until
Creation Day 4. What must this mean? It says that sunrise
to sunrise (i.e., a civil or 24 hour day) does not occur
until Creation Day 4. Otherwise the sun would be a
timekeeper-- and that doesn't happen until Creation Day 4.
 

APPENDIX I

ALLEGATIONS THAT CLAIM CREATION DAYS ARE SHORT TIME PERIODS
-----------------------------------------------------------

ALLEGATION: THE BIBLE TEACHES A RECENT CREATION

ANSWER: For the most part young earth believers do not depend on
science as the primary support for their beliefs, but
instead look to the Bible. They believe that a recent
Creation is taught and even mandated by sacred Scripture.
Many such believers appeal to Genesis Chapters 5, 10 and
11. Here a simple summation of the lifetimes of the people
listed in these chapters indicates Adam was created about
4000 BC. It is then said that this shows, or at least
indicates a very recent Creation.

This belief was formally accepted during the period known
as the dark ages, and continued through the renaissance
and into the 17th century. Using the genealogies of Bible
patriarchs found in Genesis 5, 10 and 11, Bishop Usher
totalled their ages and in 1652 surmised that Creation
occurred 4004 BC. Bishop Lightfoot refined the calculation
to 9 AM, October 23, 45th meridian time. Although this
so-called date of Adam's Creation was published in the
17th Century, the calculation had been done by various
clergymen hundreds of years earlier, and this date was
known within the Roman church long before the time of
Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century.

But how did this idea reach protestant evangelicals? It
occurred about 140 years earlier when in 1517 Luther took
various Roman Catholic traditions with him at the time of
the reformation. One example are the robes priest wear in
Lutheran (and other) churches. Another is how the Lutheran
priests speak to God by facing a crucifix on the front
wall with their back to the congregation (the Bible states
God abides in the believers).

Is there validity to adding the life spans of people to
arrive at a total elapsed time for an event? Although
adding years to get totals is a tradition from the Roman
church, it is not found in the Bible. God never adds years
in Scripture. Instead He simply states them.

For example, the time period from the descent of the
Israelites into Egypt up to the time of their departure is
declared in Exodus 12:40 to be 430 years. Likewise the
time period from the Exodus until the building of the
temple is revealed in 1 Kings 6:1 to be 480 years. These
times are stated without any addition of years. But the
advent of the heavens and the earth, the date of Adam's
creation, or the time when the Flood occurred are not
specified. In fact, the Bible is silent on the age of
things prior to the time of Abraham.

But what of the age of the people revealed in Genesis
Chapters 5, 10 and 11? Why can't these be added to provide
a total age of elapsed time? The problem with adding
numbers in this way is that the genealogies are not
complete. For example, when the Bible says in Matthew 1:8
that Joram begat Uzziah, it does not mean that Joram is
Uzziah's father. In the Hebrew mind-set and culture of
that day, it meant that Joram had seed that ultimately
issued in Uzziah (it is well known that Uzziah was Joram's
great, great grandson).

The discontinuity between the persons listed is part of a
more basic biblical principle viz., Bible writers are
always disposed toward omitting whatever is unessential to
their immediate spiritual purpose. For example, Ezra 7:1-5
gives the genealogy from Seriah through Aaron that omits
six names found in the same genealogy (listed in reverse
order) in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. Another example is the
opening verse in Matthew's Gospel. The text reads,

"The Book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,
the Son of David, the Son of Abraham"

Whose Son is He? The answer lies in the concept of "son"
and the word "begat" as used in Hebrew culture and society.
In the Hebrew mind-set of that day, He is the Son of both!
Why? Because both Abraham and David had Seed that
ultimately issued in Jesus Christ. The reason is that
although Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, He
was born through the egg provided by a woman (Mary) who
was a direct descendant of David and, therefore, also of
Abraham (Abraham's seed ultimately issued in David's birth).

Genealogies are not chronologies and cannot be used to
conclude elapsed time between biblical events. This fact
is established with great clarity in William Henry Green's
classic 1890 essay: "Primeval Chronology" (available for
download on this website). His biblical scholarship shows
that the Bible is silent on the age of things prior to
Abraham. He also illustrates how genealogies provide
abundant evidence of intentional arrangement. For example,
each ends with a father having three sons, and each
concludes with ten names.

What *is* the time of Adam's creation? As noted by Green,
the Bible is silent on the age of things prior to the time
of Abraham. We know very little. Were we to speculate, and
that is all this would be, then we can point to historical
archives showing that a Babylonian priest named Berossus
recorded 86,400 Sosses from Adam to Noah. In doing so, he
used compatible Babylonian names (i.e., contemporaries) to
Hebrew personages. Since one Babylonian Soss is 5 years,
it means these records imply 432,000 years elapsed from
the time of Adam to the time of Noah.

What is interesting is that were we to assume that a
genealogy is a chronology (which it is not), then 1656
years would have elapsed from Adam to Noah. Since this
corresponds to 86,400 weeks, then multiplying by 5 yields
432,000 years, implying that one Hebrew week is the
equivalent of one Babylonian Soss. The fact of the matter,
however, is that the time from Adam to Noah is unknown.
Genealogies are *not* chronologies.
 
 

ALLEGATION: SINCE ORDINAL NUMBERS PRECEDE LITERAL DAYS ...
YOM MUST BE A LITERAL DAY

ANSWER: There is no rule in Hebrew grammar that requires an
ordinal number to precede a literal day. This assertion is
a human invention to make something seem what it is not.
Moreover, the Bible denies opportunity to use an ordinal
number in front of the figurative use of YOM. Would we say
it is 1st Day of Reckoning (Is 2:12)? Would we say that it
is the 1st Day of the Lord (Is 15:6)? Why does Scripture
provide no such opportunity? Because Genesis Chapter One
is the only chapter of all chapters of all books of entire
Bible without human activity while conveying divine
activity in a way with which all generations can identify.
How is an infinite God to reveal miraculous Creation to
finite limited fallen creatures other than in way He did?
To summarize, there is no rule in Hebrew grammar requiring
an ordinal number to precede a literal day. It often does
so in the Bible because but for Genesis Chapter One few
occasions exist to use such numbers with a figurative day.

* Zechariah 14:7
"But it shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord."
Virtually all scholars agree this day (YOM) is not 24 hours.
Why? Consider the verse 8:

* Zechariah 14:8
"... it shall be in that day,
living waters shall go out from Jerusalem ...
... in summer and in winter shall it be."

This "day" cannot be a 24 hour day because summer and
winter are not contained within a 24 hour day. Note also
that the phrase "one day" in verse 7 therefore means that an
ordinal number can (and does) precede a non-literal day.
Moreover, although not apparent in an English translation,
the Hebrew construction of Zecariah 14:8 is identical that
found in Genesis Chapter One, verse 5.
 

ALLEGATION: EXODUS 20:9-11 SHOWS THAT GOD CREATED IN SIX LITERAL DAYS

"Six days you shall labor, and do all your work;
... for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth"

ANSWER: This text is a statement of analogy, and not identity.
God's Work was Creation; our work is toil. None of us take
this text to mean that God's Work is our work. Why then do
we force His Work Day to be our work day? This question
can be asked another way: How can we understand God's Day
to be the same as our day, but yet understand His Work to
be different than ours?

In forcing God's Creation Day to be same as our work day,
do we not pigeon-holes an Infinite God into the 24 hour
time frame of our own existence? Are we not like goldfish
who confine an Infinite God to our four-dimensional
space-time fish bowl? Stated differently, how can the
activity of God who eternally exists outside of time be
constrained to the 24 hour time interval that He Created?

Two points need to be made here: (1) Exodus 20:9-11 is a
statement of analogy-- not identity, and: (2) That God's
Day is different than our day is typical of a family of
such differences in the Bible. Consider the following
biblical examples. Here we all agree on the meanings:

* Exodus 23:10-11
This text reveals a "Sabbath of Years"
God's Sabbath is seven years-- ours is seven days

* Matthew 26:28
A Cup of blood of the new covenant is shed on behalf of many
The Apostles drank "supper blood" which was fruit of the vine
However the Lord's Blood is the Blood that He shed at Calvary
Our supper blood is not His Calvary Blood

* Luke 12:50
He says "I have a Baptism to undergo ...
and how distressed I am until it is accomplished"
His baptism was Crucifixion-- ours is water
Here the Lord's Baptism is not our baptism

* 2 Peter 3:8
A Day with the Lord is as 1000 years (of our time)
His Day is as a thousand years-- ours is 24 hours

* 1 John 2:18
It is the last hour <HORA> (Greek for a literal hour)
But this "last hour" is now about 2000 years long
The Lord's prophetic hour is not our hour

If His Sabbath isn't ours in Exodus
If His Blood isn't ours in Matthew
If His Baptism isn't ours in Luke
If His Day isn't ours in 2 Peter
If His Hour isn't ours in 1 John

Why do we force His Work Day to be ours in Genesis?
 

ALLEGATION: A PLAIN READING OF THE TEXT SHOWS YOM MEANS 24 HOURS.

ANSWER: If all we read was Genesis Chapter One the Hebrew word YOM
is still not be seen to mean 24 hours. Genesis 1:5 reveals
that YOM is the label God gives to light-- not light and
darkness. A 24 hour day has darkness. A 24 hour day brings
sunrise to sunrise, and sunset to sunset. It thus acts as
a timekeeper. But God reveals that the sun does not act as
a timekeeper until Creation Day 4. Therefore Creation Days
1, 2 and 3 could not be 24 hour days. In addition, Genesis
Chapter One continues into Chapter Two where YOM is found
in verse 4 as "the Day the Lord God made the earth and the
heavens". Here "YOM" is God's activity over all 6 Creation
Days. Who would say that YOM in Genesis 2:4 means 24 hours?
 
 

APPENDIX II

BIBLICAL REFERENCES INDICATING CREATION DAYS ARE LONG TIME PERIODS
------------------------------------------------------------------

i) THE BOOK OF HEBREWS TEACHES GOD'S WORD FRAMED AGES-- NOT DAYS

* Hebrews 11:3
The Greek text teaches that at Creation, God's Word packaged
or "framed" ages (AION) rather than days.

ii) GENESIS TWO INDICATES EVE WAS CREATED LONG AFTER ADAM'S CREATION

* Genesis 2:23
This is now <PAAM> bone of my bone, or .....
This is now < HAPPAAM> bone of my bones
This Hebrew denotes a final realization ...
after a very long time period of waiting
=> this is found in any good lexicon e.g. Brown, Driver & Briggs
 

iii) HEBREWS TEACHES THE SEVENTH CREATION DAY CAN NOT BE 24 HOURS

* Hebrews 4:1 & 10
These verses teach that a believer entering into God's Rest
ceases from his labors in exactly the same way ...
that God has ceased from His (not 24 hours)
But Genesis 2:2 reveals that God rested on the 7th Day
This is the same Hebrew as preceding 6 Days
If YOM is 24 hour day, then a believer only rests for 24 hours.
But Hebrews 4:10 is eternal
i.e. Hebrews 4:1 & 10 teach that a believer entering God's Rest
ceases from his labors in the same way God did from His
If believers cease from their labors as God did from His,
then the 7th day in Genesis 2:2 cannot be a civil (24 hour) day

Another indication that Creation Day 7 cannot be 24 hours
lies in Bible teaching that God's physical creation was
completed in six Creation Days (found in Genesis 1:31, 2:1
and Exodus 20:11). But God ceased and rested from all His
Work on Creation Day 7 (see Genesis 2:2b and Exodux 20:11b).
Since John 5:17 shows that God is still working during the
time of Jesus, and since 1 Corinthians 3:6 teaches that God
is still working during Apostalic times, the seventh Creation
Day cannot be 24 hours. If God ceased from all His on Work on
Creation Day 7, but still is working at the time of Jesus and
the Apostles, it means that God's Work in physical Creation
ceased, but His Spiritual work continues, and we are still in
the seventh Creation Day.
 

iv) PSALM 90 USES "EVENING" AND "MORNING" AS LONG TIME PERIODS

* Psalm 90:6
In the morning the grass grows & flourishes.
In the evening it is cut down and dies.
What is the context here?
vs.4 Yesterday is as a thousand years to Thee.
vs.5 You slay men like grass
vs.6 In the morning it flourishes; in the evening it withers
Here evening and morning are not literal-- they are metaphors
 
 

APPENDIX III

BIBLICAL INDICATIONS THAT GENESIS CONTAINS FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------

There are biblical reasons to believe that the Book of Genesis
contains figurative language, and that this is particularly so in
Genesis Chapter One. To illustrate this, let us consider the following
questions:

a) WHEN TAKEN LITERALLY, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAY?

Genesis 1, verse 1 tells us:

1. WHO created:

"In the beginning God created ...
===
2. WHAT He created:

"... God created the heaven(s) and the earth."
=======================

Genesis 1, verses 3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26 tell us:

3. HOW God created:

"God said ..."
====

b) DOES "GOD SAID" LITERALLY MEAN THAT GOD SPEAKS AS WE DO?

The phrase "God said ..." if taken literally would mean that God's
larynx vibrated, producing sound energy that traveled from God's mouth
and through the air in the form of longitudinal pressure waves. But
the larynx and mouth are anatomical features of a human body. Since
God is Spirit (John 4:24), God has no larynx and mouth. Therefore what
does it mean when we read: "God said ..."? Since God is Spirit, He
speaks after the manner of Spirit. Therefore "God said ..." cannot be
utterance in the literal sense voiced by human flesh. But since speech
has no other meaning, it means that the phrase: "God said ..." cannot
be taken literally. The text is teaching that just as in our human
experience when a general speaks to a private and he obeys, know that
in like manner, physical Creation obeys when God "speaks".
 

c) IS LITERAL SPEECH POSSIBLE IN GENESIS ONE?

Literal speech requires air that is not created until verse 6, when
God intersperses a firmament between the waters. We know that this
firmament is air because the birds fly through it in verse 20. Since
speech requires air, and since air does not yet exist in the time
frame of verse 3, we know that God could not have literally spoken in
a human sense. If He did, it would contradict Genesis One by requiring
air to exist one day earlier than God reveals it is created.
 

d) WHAT DOES THE PHRASE "GOD SAID" ACTUALLY MEAN?

Creation occurred in a realm that lies outside man's existence.
Moreover God's activities were inaccessible to human perception and
are very likely beyond our comprehension. Nonetheless God tells us
what He did-- and He does so using the phrase, "God said". But what
does this mean? Human experience demonstrates that it is impossible to
call something into existence by merely speaking. Yet despite this
impossibility, God reveals that He miraculously created all that we
see and are by merely calling it into existence. Since Genesis Chapter
One states in verse 3: "God said" before God creates the atmosphere
(verse 6), the phrase "God said" cannot be literal, and therefore must
be figurative.
 

e) IN WHAT SENSE IS THE PHRASE "GOD SAID" FIGURATIVE?

Just as in our human experience when someone with great authority
speaks and is immediately obeyed, so too in a realm where we cannot
see God is telling us that He called all of Creation into existence by
His Word-- a miracle some might find hard to believe. Yet based upon
our understandings from Quantum Physics, physical particles are
"created" when an observer collapses wave functions. Perhaps our world
originated by God collapsing wave functions-- this may be how He
Created all that we see and are. This raises a very basic question:
"Do particles presuppose Intelligence? Stated differently, "Does
physical reality exist as the fabric of intelligence?
 

f) WHY WOULD GENESIS ONE DESCRIBE CREATION IN FIGURATIVE WORDS?

Unlike every other chapter of every other book in the Bible, no human
activity occurs in Genesis 1. Thus God makes concession to our finite
limitations by describing Creation in a way that all humans throughout
all ages can understand. Virtually all scientists agree that physical
reality consists of more than 4 dimensions. String theory suggests it
may have 10, and some believe it consists of as many as 25 dimensions.
How can words whose meaning is confined to the literal experience of
finite four-dimensional creatures (us) ever describe a Creation whose
10 (or more) dimensional realm lies outside their limited existence?
 

g) DOES GENESIS CHAPTER TWO CONTAIN FIGURATIVE WORDS?

Jesus (Matthew 19:4) makes it quite clear that Adam was created a
literal, complete human being. Luke (3:38) and Paul (Romans 5:14)
affirm this. But the fruit that Adam ate is another matter. Genesis
2:16-17 records part of God's instruction to Adam: "of every tree of
the garden you may freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, you shall not eat". Since literal fruit "of the
knowledge of good and evil" in the form of vegetation does not exist,
it is unclear how this "tree" can be literal vegetation.
 

h) ARE THE TREES IN GENESIS CHAPTER TWO LITERAL VEGETATION?

Consider how God describes these trees in Ezekiel 31:9, "... all the
trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him". Verse 15
continues, "all of the trees of the field fainted for him"; verse 16
adds: "and all the trees of Eden ... shall be comforted in the nether
parts of the earth". Since literal trees do not envy and faint, and
are not "comforted", Ezekiel 31 indicates that these trees are not
literal. Therefore it appears that Genesis contains figurative words.
 

i) DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THAT ADAM ATE LITERAL FRUIT?

Genesis 3:6 reads in part, "And when the woman (Eve) saw that the tree
was good for food .. she took of its fruit, and did eat, and gave also
unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Now Jesus tells us that
whatever enters a man from the outside cannot defile him, because it
passes through and is eliminated (Mark 7:18-23). But the fruit eaten
in the garden not only afflicted Adam but brought death to the entire
human race viz., "in Adam all die" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Since Jesus
tells us that nothing that a person eats can defile him, the fruit
eaten in the Garden of Eden could not have been literal vegetation.
 

j) ARE FIGURATIVE WORDS FOUND ELSEWHERE IN GENESIS?

Genesis 16 describes events surrounding the father of the Jewish
nation Abram, his wife Sarai, and their handmaid Hagar. These events
embrace real people who lived on earth in an earlier time. Yet God
tells us that these women symbolize two covenants-- the first from
Jerusalem above and the second from Mount Sinai in Arabia (Galatians
4:21-31). Therefore while Sarai and Hagar are the literal names of
real people, they are also symbols for two testaments that span
thousands of years.
 

k) DID MOSES FORESEE THE SYMBOLIC MEANING OF HIS WORDS?