Friday, December 31, 2010

Are the Creation days 24 hours?

According to some lexical sources:


1. day, i.e., a unit of time reckoned from sunset to the next sunset, including two or more segments (morning and evening) about 24 hours (Ge 1:5), cf. also 3429; 2. LN 67.163–67.200 day, i.e., the period of time which has light (Ge 1:5)
-James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
2. day of twenty-four hours: Gn 1:5 
 -Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 399.



I've consulted many sources, but was unable to find even one that defined "day" in Genesis 1 to refer to anything other than a 24 hour day.  If anyone has any lexical sources which site to the contrary, i'd be interested to look at it.  

43 comments:

StandFirm said...

Strong's says it can mean any time period. The same word is used at Genesis 2:4. Obviously that is not a 24 hour day.

The Apologetic Front said...

Of course it can mean that, depending on the context and qualifiers attached to the word. The question is, what does it mean in Genesis 1 and why? No lexical source that i'm aware of views "yom" in Genesis 1 as referring to anything other than a 24 hour day.

Chris said...

You have to be careful with this one, Mike. I agree with you that these are literally 24-hour days. However, even some OEC's like Koukl will admit that 24-hour days are what are being described. He would say that these 24-hour days are symbolic of long periods of time.

In other words, he would not say "yom" means a very long time here. Rather, he would say it means a day, but that that day represents a very long period of time.

The Apologetic Front said...

Chris, i've never heard it articulated quite like that before. Most day-agers that i've heard explicitly deny that the days are 24 hours at all. So it could be that Greg has a view that i'm not accustomed to hearing.

Where does he exegetically derive such a conclusion from? Are there other passages in Scripture where 24 hour days are explicitly used to represent a long period of time?

Chris said...

I don't think he derives his view, that 24-hour days are being pictured by symbolize long periods of time, exegetically. I think he sees the scientific evidence in favor of an old universe as so persuasive that we're forced to understand the days as symbolic of long periods of time.

I don't think there is anywhere else in Scripture where 24-hour days are used to picture long periods of time, and I think that's a serious problem with his view. Additionally, whereas we have biblical precedent for understanding apocalyptic literature symbolically, I don't think we have precedent for understanding that which is intended to record history as being allegorical.

The Apologetic Front said...

That seems like a pretty dangerous view. Its almost as if we should just be handing our Bibles to men in lab coats and asking them what it means. And I only say this because it would seem that given this perspective, one would have to prove using strictly scientific evidences under a uniformitarian framework that the earth is young.

C. Stirling Bartholomew said...

Well my friend Andrei who thinks about Genesis every day of his working life and does not like to be quoted by name, thinks the whole thing is sort of metaphorical. He is a linguist, hebraist, LXX scholar and OT translation consultant working with CIS minority language cultures, took his PhD studying under Jan de Waard in the Netherlands.

I sort of quit worrying about it after reading Bruce Waltke’s lectureship “Creation and Chaos” in the fall quarter 1974 at Western Seminary. Decades ago I had lunch with a fellow who attend the lectures, his name escapes me, but he had studied Hebrew for several years at a university before doing an MA in Hebrew OT Exegesis at Western Seminary. Rich Lucas was his name, just came back to me (old age). Rich wasn’t particularly impressed with Waltke’s exegesis. He sat through the whole thing (what endurance!) thinking of numerous objections to Waltke’s treatment of Gen 1:1-2, the most interesting part of which was his treatment of tohu wabohu, very obvious that Waltke was a student of Frank Moore Cross whose “Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic …” is a must read for anyone reading works by students of F. M. Cross. The man left his stamp on a lot of scholars, for example J. J. Collins who has written a ton of stuff on apocalyptic. Anyway, it was a real revelation to me to read “Canaanite myth …” I was giving Waltke way too much credit for being brilliant when he was just passing down tradition from his doktorvater.

The background for tohu wabohu Gen 1:2 is a deep well, you can never find the bottom of it.

C. Stirling Bartholomew said...

Followup comment: check out Amos 5:18 Joel 1:15 Joel 2:1 Joel 3:4 Joel 4:14 Obad. 15 Zeph. 1:14 Mal. 3:19 Mal. 3:23 Is. 13:6 Is. 13:9 Jer. 25:33 Ezek. 7:10 Ezek. 13:5

YOM YHWH, probably a metaphoric use of YOM. The problem as I see it is trying to make a physics textbook out of an ancient Hebrew narrative. Creation IMHO was a metaphysical "event" and if you need to explain a metaphysical event in an ancient nomadic culture, narrative is the obvious choice, and there is going to be something like metaphor used because you are describing something beyond the understanding of you target audience. The raise questions about the physical process of creation and expect to find answers in the Genesis account is a category error.

As far as I am concerned the creation event isn't something that can be investigated by science of any sort. You cannot investigate metaphysics when all you have access to is the phenomenal cosmos. That is why I don't get terrible concerned about physics and biology. They have nothing to offer in regard to the event of creation. The Genesis account is an accommodation to the culture and thought forms of the target audience. To understand it you need to read about the other ANE cosmologies. That statement should NOT be equated with what Bruce Waltke, Peter Enns and Tremper Longmann III are saying.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Stirling,

I don't know of anyone that is actually investigating the mechanical processes of creation, as such is impossible. But what many are doing is looking for evidence in nature to confirm the already established truth that God created in the manner in which Gen1 describes.

So, while Genesis is not a science textbook, it is completely reasonable to expect that scientific findings should be consisting with the narrative. And I believe that organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research have done exactly that.

And interestingly enough, the Biblical Worldview makes far better sense of the scientific evidence than the evolutionary one.

Vas said...

And interestingly enough, the Biblical Worldview makes far better sense of the scientific evidence than the evolutionary one.

Care to explain? It seems like every time one is asked to elaborate on the above we get answers such as: The Bible is not a science book.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Vas

Yes, the information found in the DNA. Last time I check, Information always comes from an intelligent source as all experience has shown to be the case. And given that we have the most complex information system in the known universe in the DNA, it would make more sense within a biblical worldview.

So I take it that your worldview makes more sense of information systems that far surpass anything man has ever created?

Vas said...

So you're saying that the complexity of DNA not only refutes evolutionary explanations but provides evidence for a biblical worldview (i.e., special creation)?

Mike Felker said...

@Vas,

I wouldn't put it like that. I would just say that the science behind Information Theory lends more confirmatory support to the Creation worldview than the Evolutionary.

Could it be that scientists discover a mechanism whereby the most complex information systems in the world can come about through naturalistic mechanisms? Possibly?

But from what we currently know about Information and DNA, the evidence makes much better sense in a Biblical framework. But please note: i'm not talking about proving Genesis, but confirming it.

Vas said...

So what (or how) do you interpret evidence from information theory to support a creation worldview?

Scientist have, it's called evolution. The question should be: is there any evidence that would convince you of evolution?

What do we currently know that supports a biblical framework? We have ample evidence in support of evolution and none in support of ID.

I think this is turns into more of a game than anything else, what scientific evidence could convince you of anything when their is ample evidence that produces evidence contrary to your particular biblical worldview (a young earth where it's populated by life that was specially created -- no evolution -- as it's own kind.

C. Stirling Bartholomew said...

Mike,

I observed my father for half a century dealing with the science and creation issue. He was a scientist involved in developing weapons systems. He lived long enough to read Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson. I think that book really pleased him. Some of his old friends have caved in to evolution in one form or another. It had been going on for all his life.

Anyway, if you are going to deal with Genesis the first order of business is to find out what Genesis is all about. That sounds kind of silly but really, I had read Genesis for over forty years before I found out what the first chapter of Genesis was all about. That is why looking into ANE creation stories, the general framework, combat cosmologies and all of that is absolutely essential for reading Genesis 1. Most of the questions I hear posed by apologetics people about Genesis one are simply framed in the wrong way, the asking questions Genesis doesn’t intend to answer.

Genesis one has a very carefully constructed anti-pagan-mythology polemic built into the narrative. If you all ready know all about this then good enough. But most of the discussions I see on web concerning Genesis and Creation are not reading Genesis One against its cultural background of ANE cosmologies and therefor a lot wasted talk about things that are clearly beside the point. Genesis One has a very clear purposeful agenda and for what I can see that agenda is being largely ignored. I am not accusing you of this. Just talking about what I have seen out there in the cyber-wasteland.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Stirling,

You may very well be right about all that. Be that as it may, even being written in the context you mentioned, i'm not sure how it would negate one from viewing the evidence in light of what it teaches, regardless of whether or not it was "intended" for that purpose.

I'm sure Paul didn't expect countless volumes of works to be written on his letters in analyzing the grammar and all that, since some or most were simply to be read aloud in churches, but we still analyze his writings as we do.

Similarly, I don't know if Luke ever intended Acts to be turned into a textbook of history and tested against archaeological evidence, but it still is.

In other words, I can grant all the background you mentioned to Genesis 1, but I would still see no reason not to view it as a historical narrative describing historical events, just as the rest of Genesis does.

But i'm open the possibility of ignorance on my part regarding Genesis, not knowing all the background info. So maybe one of these days i'll look into that.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Vas,

I interpret it the same way anyone else does by asking whether it fits the criterion of real information. If it does, then it logically follows that it comes from an intelligent source.

What evidence would convince me of evolution? Well, for starters, an example of information coming about through naturalistic processes.

"What do we currently know that supports a biblical framework? We have ample evidence in support of evolution and none in support of ID."

I'm not claiming absolute certainty in that. This is why I contrasted between proving and confirming.

As far as the "ample evidence" to support evolution, well, let's start with information theory. Show me the "ample evidence" which shows that the most complex information source in the known universe makes more sense in the evolutionary framework.

Vas said...

Perhaps I should reconsider the way that I ask my question(s).

Here: What evidence do we have for an Intelligent Designer? What does this have to do with Information Theory (I have a feeling you're just restating common ID arguments).

.. and, even if we are to entertain the idea that there was intelligence involved, how does this disprove what we actually know about evolution?

Could you provide me with an alternative explanation for evolution and the age of the earth, i.e., do you have a competing "framework" that has evidence to support it?

The Apologetic Front said...

@Vas,

The evidence for an Intelligent Designer has already been stated: the existence of complex information systems in biology. And this has to do with Information Theory because Information Theory would determine whether things like the DNA come from an intelligent source. And yes, this is just a restatement of ID arguments.

But my point was not proving or disproving. It was to show which worldview can best account for this piece of evidence.

As far as an alternative framework; the Bible. The Bible is my ultimate presupposition and starting point and needs nothing further than God's own testimony to authenticate it. But things like the information found in DNA seem to be very consistent with the framework.

Vas said...

The last time I went over this with you I dropped a link to a review of Dembki's CSI.

This argument of "DNA is just so complex it requires a designer" is weak and not evidence.

Things like: The age of the earth and evolution don't seem to be consistent with your strict biblical worldview, how does your worldview explains these things?

This is taken from AiG (below), and I think it speaks volumes on what "evidence" means to those who follow such a worldview.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

The Apologetic Front said...

@Vas

I appreciate the links your posted but just haven't had the time to get to them. My reading list is stacked pretty high right now. If I took the time to read them, would you take the time to read Meyer's "Signature in the Cell?"

As i've stated many times before, the argument is not "DNA is just so complex that it requires a designer." I can dump a pile of rocks out in my backyard which would form something complex, but this would not require the action of a designer. In other words, there is complexity and there is specified informational complexity.

Of course millions of years and evolution aren't consistent with my worldview. But I don't think that's what you're asking. I think what you're asking is, how is evidences x, y, and z consistent with my worldview. You'd have to be specific with what evidence you are talking about.

As to the AIG quote, I agree with it only with qualification. Its not that you can put a fossil in from of them and they'd say, "I disagree with the existence of that fossil." But what they would say is, "I disagree with how evolutionists would interpret this fossil."

So yes, no interpretation is correct if it contradicts Scripture. All facts exist because God made them so. He is the Creator and the sole basis by which we can have any grounds for doing science in the first place. So in that regard, I submit to His authority in all areas, whether science, philosophy, history, or morality.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Vas, also keep in mind that I don't recall ever reading any books by Dembski, so the paper you referenced (which I did download) may not be the best thing to read unless i've read Dembski first. I'd be much more interested in reading something in critique of Meyer or Gitt since I am more familiar with their work.

Eldnar said...

Are there other passages in Scripture where 24 hour days are explicitly used to represent a long period of time?

Yes, weeks (which are seven 24 hour days collected together) are explicitly referred to as seven years in Genesis. In that case, day one of the week would equal year one. The author of Genesis wrote to an audience that understood days and weeks to mean longer periods of time.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Eldnar, what verse are you speaking of?

Eldnar said...

My apologies Mike, I was going off of memory. When I actually consulted my notes I realized made a mistake.

I had this site in my bookmarks on the Yom discussion, it may assist.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

God Bless.

The Apologetic Front said...

@Eldnar, thanks for the link. I read through it and found its arguments to be unsound and problematic. For instance, the author gives the impression "real" Hebrew scholars know that the days in Genesis 1 aren't 24 hr. days. Yet, I cited two of the most current and scholarly Hebrew lexicons available which explicitly reference Genesis 1:5 as a 24 hr. day. In fact, no lexicon that i'm aware of cites the days in Genesis 1 as long periods of time.

The only real exception that the author poses as an argument is Zechariah 14:7-9. Interestingly, he alludes to Sarfati but fails to actually address his argument. Instead, he calls his argument "impressive," but simply concludes that

a) Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule (which is patently false)

b) Sarfati is "creating rules that support his own agenda."

Neither is an actual refutation of the Creationist view nor does it provide an actual example in Scripture where there is exception to the rule.

Eldnar said...

I agree, I also don't like dismissals like, "Real Scholars" say this. Sometimes it's valid, but more often than not, "Real Scholars" means "Scholars who agree with me". Which is how I think he was using it. :)

Although, I do think your dismissals of his arguments are a bit too broad and quick though.

I began as YEC, but today I tend to lean towards the day-age view. I may come back, but I'll need evidence the the Hebrews were sticklers for hours in a day; in most cases they didn't seem to care about precision like we do today. The use of "day" in Genesis 2:4 was probably the single biggest verse to unseat me from my position of YEC.

Anyways, it's a never-ending debate, and we can both ask Jesus in the kingdom. When He explains to you the superior exegesis of OEC scholars, we'll all have a good laugh and bathe in His glory!

Take care my friend!

The Apologetic Front said...

@Eldnar, I appreciate your charity towards me in spite of our differences on this issue. Unfortunately, this controversy has sparked far more heat and emotions than necessary, as important of an issue that it might be. As with all things theological, it should be approached with respect and humility.

With that being said, I might have been quick to dismiss because I have spent much time hashing through those arguments, as there wasn't really anything new. If there's any particular aspect of the article that you would have liked for me to address, please let me know.

As for evidence that "Hebrews were sticklers for hours in a day," i'd like to ask: do you question the meaning of "day" in this manner in places outside Gen1? And i'm not talking about a few semi-trivial examples like Zech. 14:7-9. I'm talking about texts like,

“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”
(Genesis 7:4)

24 hour days or indefinite periods of time? How do you know which?

Gen 2:4 kind of boggles me as to why it trips people up. Its not modified by a cardinal number, evening or morning; so therefore doesn't fit the criteria that a normal 24 hour day would have. This is especially the case here where the "period" is explicitly defined for us as referring to the amount of time the creation narrative lasted.

Never-ending debate? Quite possibly. But I feel like OEC's grossly complicate it from the plain ordinary sense of the language; since no one is sitting around debating the meaning of "day" in about 99.9 percent of the places outside of Gen1. I'm sure OEC's gloss over almost every mention of "day" since ordinary language usage and common sense would tell them that most of the occurrences are just ordinary, 24 hour days.

Anyway, no need to hash this out further. I appreciate your comments and hope you stop by again. Godbless!

The Apologetic Front said...

@Eldnar, I appreciate your charity towards me in spite of our differences on this issue. Unfortunately, this controversy has sparked far more heat and emotions than necessary, as important of an issue that it might be. As with all things theological, it should be approached with respect and humility.

With that being said, I might have been quick to dismiss because I have spent much time hashing through those arguments, as there wasn't really anything new. If there's any particular aspect of the article that you would have liked for me to address, please let me know.

As for evidence that "Hebrews were sticklers for hours in a day," i'd like to ask: do you question the meaning of "day" in this manner in places outside Gen1? And i'm not talking about a few semi-trivial examples like Zech. 14:7-9. I'm talking about texts like,

“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”
(Genesis 7:4)

24 hour days or indefinite periods of time? How do you know which?

The Apologetic Front said...

(cont'd)

Gen 2:4 kind of boggles me as to why it trips people up. Its not modified by a cardinal number, evening or morning; so therefore doesn't fit the criteria that a normal 24 hour day would have. This is especially the case here where the "period" is explicitly defined for us as referring to the amount of time the creation narrative lasted.

Never-ending debate? Quite possibly. But I feel like OEC's grossly complicate it from the plain ordinary sense of the language; since no one is sitting around debating the meaning of "day" in about 99.9 percent of the places outside of Gen1. I'm sure OEC's gloss over almost every mention of "day" since ordinary language usage and common sense would tell them that most of the occurrences are just ordinary, 24 hour days.

Anyway, no need to hash this out further. I appreciate your comments and hope you stop by again. Godbless!

Vas said...

Information theory in regards to ID has been butchered by Dembski to support ID, some of the cookie-cut arguments (e.g., specified complexity) are his arguments.

The Paper I shared with you gives an explanation of information theory as well as gives us examples of where Dembski has made some serious errors.

Phrases like irreducible complexity and specified complexity tell us nothing about ID and are If anything exaggerated ways of saying "God dun it".

Now as far as your worldview goes: it doesn't explain evolution. Making appeals to common ID phrases does not [1] give us a valid alternative to evolution [2] nor explain common descent. So, what I'm saying is that your worldview cannot account for common decent; nor the age of the earth. Both have mounds of evidence (peer-reviewed) and both contradict a strict YEC worldview that's only evidence seems to be a lack of evidence and to ignore all contradicting evidence i.e., "it contradicts scripture so it MUST be wrong".

I don't know how to present any evidence in a way that you'll accept given that youve conceded that any evIdence that contradicts scripture has to be wrong or just another "interpretation"

The Apologetic Front said...

@Vas, i'm not sure why you're bringing Dembski into this, given that I don't ever recall offering support for his position nor asserting that he is the authority in all things ID. I've listened to maybe a debate or two with him, but never read anything by him. Have you read Dembski's work to know whether the papers you referenced are an accurate depiction of his arguments?

Of course my worldview doesn't "explain" evolution, because evolution is wrong according to my worldview, so i'm not sure why you're phrasing things the way you are.

As for evidence, feel free to bring it forth and i'll tell you what I think about it within my worldview. But are you actually suggesting that I abandon my worldview by interpreting a piece of evidence with an evolutionary framework?

Vas said...

Specified complexity is Dembski's argument, so that's why i felt he was worth mentioning.

I'm familiar with Dembski's arguments, and have went over his "specified complexity" -- he's not stupid, so he leads me to believe that he is lying.

I'm not asking you to interpret evolutionary evidence, I'm stating that your worldview has nothing to say about it except to ignore it which is why I felt it necessary to quote AiG's "if it contradicts our biblical interpretation it must be wrong".

The Apologetic Front said...

You are "familiar" with his argument, but have never read his works? And without doing so, you conclude that he is lying?

"your worldview has nothing to say about it except to ignore it"

My worldview has nothing to say about "evolutionary evidence?" Can you please show me an example where Creation scientists will have nothing to say about it?

Vas said...

His theorem is out in the open for anyone to view. What evidence he can actually produce to substantiate his claim is important to me. I could care less about his theological bickering.

Do you need to read Dawkins entire catalogue to form the opinion that he's ignorant when it comes to theology?No.

Creation-scientist have plenty to say about evolution, but your worldview does not.

Most creationist play semantic games, I've yet to get a clear answer (i.e., definition) from a creationist of what a "kind" is.

The Apologetic Front said...

You don't have to read all of Dawkins to know where he is coming from. But it would be unfair for me to read a book about Dawkins and the conclude that what they are saying about him is true and accurate. This is why I sought to read "The God Delusion" for myself and see if all the refutations were accurate. And I think you should do the same for Dembski before calling him a liar.

"Creation-scientist have plenty to say about evolution, but your worldview does not"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. My worldview contains a revelation from the Creator. And certainly, it is completely reasonable for me to view any interpretation offered by evolutionists and judge it in accordance with what God has revealed.

The reason you haven't gotten a clear answer on the definition of "kinds" is because there is none, and creationists have admitted such and are working on it. But whether or not the precise definition is determined does not phase what the Bible would have to say about evolution.

Vas said...

What many might say of Dembski is that he's: dumb, ignorant, suffers from cognitive dissonance; but I'm of the opinion that he's a liar because he doesn't seem to suffer from any sort of disorder that I'm aware of.


You're right about there being no definition (from creationist) but I disagree with that being admitted aig, ray comfort almost always use the word "kind" ambiguously.

The Apologetic Front said...

Its admitted by AIG and any Creation scientist worth his salt. You can check this out for yourself on their website. If they had a precise definition, they wouldn't be devoting themselves to major research projects in order to find out.

If what you say about Dembski is true, then please show me an explicit instance where he "lied." This should be very easy to do for one who is bold enough to make such a charge.

Vas said...

What's admitted? That the word "kinds" as used by creationist is ambiguous?

Here is an somewhat of a picture of what "kinds" may be as described by AiG

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/variety-within-kinds

I'm not saying that Dembski has lied. I'm saying that it's of my opinion that he has, is, and will continue to do so every time he continues to push forth a theorem that has been demonstrated by others to be false.

Dembski: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." (pg 150 no free lunch)

http://books.google.com/books?id=qCDp8MjkkLQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=no+free+lunch+dembski&source=bl&ots=3WUK27b4lQ&sig=A_74YW_41blyN2HBM4hDq3CRcHM&hl=en&ei=4YMiTe2CDY32tgOez-mwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not sure how the above will show up, but you can view page 150 by scrolling through the book.

Vs.

Dembski:"I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity in the same way that no physicist is in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the conservation of energy. Mathematics certainly comes into the picture in both instances and is crucial in justifying these claims, but there are empirical and nonmathematical considerations that come into play as well and that make strict mathematical proof not feasible (and perhaps not even desirable)."

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm


So, again, it's of my opinion that he knows the limits of his "theorem", but his true agenda is not to do science, it's to push his worldview.

The Apologetic Front said...

Your link displays what the Creationist position is: we have "somewhat of a picture" as to what "kinds" are. Creationists have ruled out some things, but a precise definition or system is yet to be established.

As to Dembski, the google books viewer won't let me view p. 150. But I would have to read his book for myself to see if there is a contradiction in his thought. But I wouldn't call that "lying." Given that way of thinking, you might as well call me and every other Creationist a liar too, since in your view, all our arguments have been debunked.

Anonymous said...

Is God going to burn those "morons" who hold to old earth theology in hell for all eternity ?Seems ya'll quick to stand in judgement and condemn those who hold to a different world view - one of the things I hate most about evangelicals - I think they have a secret agenda and would not trust them as far as I can throw them ,one reason I'm nolonger one , started to see through their veneer of manufactured spirituality,hypocrisy and pseudo intellectual debates...

Anonymous said...

The first few chapters of Genesis are poetic , they contain elements of truth wrapped in metophorical language . For me the days of creation are not literal as God exists outside of time and sapce as we know and understand it , the chapters are written from a human standpoint as though through time -lapse filmography ;-)

The Apologetic Front said...

@Anonymous, has anyone here "condemned" or referred to anyone as a "moron" who holds to an old earth?