I interviewed two of my co-workers (Dan and Jaclyn) and one person that volunteers in third through fifth grade ministry (Steve). I found it intriguing that none of the people I chose to interview subscribed completely to a literal Biblical Young Earth interpretation. I have summarized their answers below.
On the question of length of day, Steve was in the 24 hour camp. His reason was that he believed the text was talking about the amount of light in a given period of time since on the first day God created light. Jaclyn and Dan did not believe that the days were twenty-four hours, but did not believe they were millions of years either. Jaclyn posited that they could be just compartments the writer of Genesis used to compartmentalize and categorize …show more content…
However, using a bit of logic and some remedial science and some evidence from Scripture, we can posit that the days in the Genesis account were normal days. First, if the days were long periods of time, and the order of creation remains intact, then we would have plants on day 3 and millions (or billions) of years later the Sun, Moon and stars would be formed. Then eons later animals appear. This is a problem for the plants which require light for photosynthesis and animals for carbon dioxide. Evidence from scripture is found in the contextual clues left by the author. As Dr. DeWitt states in his lecture, “Elsewhere in the Old Testament, where ‘yom’ [the Hebrew word for ‘day’] is used with a number… it means an ordinary day. If it is used with night, evening, or morning it means an ordinary day.” In the Genesis 1 account, a number with both morning and evening are used. It is almost as if the writer were urging readers not to be confused about the meaning. There is also the reference to the days of creation as a blueprint for the work week in Exodus 20:9-11, “You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God… For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is …show more content…
Jaclyn put herself in this camp. The reason for this position is to try to reconcile the supposed evidence from science and the Bible as well as relying on an improper translation of verse 2 where, “Instead of ‘And the earth was formless and empty’… [it is interpreted] as ‘Now the earth became formless and empty’”. DeWitt describes this as a “tortured interpretation of Scripture…inconsistent with Exodus 20:11.” A close reading of the genealogies in Genesis place the Creation at about 6,000 years ago. This approximate age is based on three assumptions Bishop Ussher described. They are: the creation days were normal days (detailed in my response to question 1), the ages of the patriarchs are reasonably accurate and there are no significant gaps in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. The ages of the Patriarchs, according to DeWitt, “should be considered reasonably accurate and given approximate age for the time between Adam and Abraham…” As for gaps in the genealogies, this is not a problem, as the ages of the patriarchs when they begat their descendants. The ages line up and display no significant gaps. The genealogy in Matthew is also touted as having significant gaps. DeWitt explains that the writer, “makes the point that there are 14 generations
On the question of length of day, Steve was in the 24 hour camp. His reason was that he believed the text was talking about the amount of light in a given period of time since on the first day God created light. Jaclyn and Dan did not believe that the days were twenty-four hours, but did not believe they were millions of years either. Jaclyn posited that they could be just compartments the writer of Genesis used to compartmentalize and categorize …show more content…
However, using a bit of logic and some remedial science and some evidence from Scripture, we can posit that the days in the Genesis account were normal days. First, if the days were long periods of time, and the order of creation remains intact, then we would have plants on day 3 and millions (or billions) of years later the Sun, Moon and stars would be formed. Then eons later animals appear. This is a problem for the plants which require light for photosynthesis and animals for carbon dioxide. Evidence from scripture is found in the contextual clues left by the author. As Dr. DeWitt states in his lecture, “Elsewhere in the Old Testament, where ‘yom’ [the Hebrew word for ‘day’] is used with a number… it means an ordinary day. If it is used with night, evening, or morning it means an ordinary day.” In the Genesis 1 account, a number with both morning and evening are used. It is almost as if the writer were urging readers not to be confused about the meaning. There is also the reference to the days of creation as a blueprint for the work week in Exodus 20:9-11, “You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God… For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is …show more content…
Jaclyn put herself in this camp. The reason for this position is to try to reconcile the supposed evidence from science and the Bible as well as relying on an improper translation of verse 2 where, “Instead of ‘And the earth was formless and empty’… [it is interpreted] as ‘Now the earth became formless and empty’”. DeWitt describes this as a “tortured interpretation of Scripture…inconsistent with Exodus 20:11.” A close reading of the genealogies in Genesis place the Creation at about 6,000 years ago. This approximate age is based on three assumptions Bishop Ussher described. They are: the creation days were normal days (detailed in my response to question 1), the ages of the patriarchs are reasonably accurate and there are no significant gaps in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. The ages of the Patriarchs, according to DeWitt, “should be considered reasonably accurate and given approximate age for the time between Adam and Abraham…” As for gaps in the genealogies, this is not a problem, as the ages of the patriarchs when they begat their descendants. The ages line up and display no significant gaps. The genealogy in Matthew is also touted as having significant gaps. DeWitt explains that the writer, “makes the point that there are 14 generations