Odds are Six to One That a Day is a Day- Confessions of a YEC part 7

Let’s remeber that when you look into the Bible to see what God has said about the Genesis account of Creation week, he has this to say:

“And God spoke all these words: “I am the Lord your God…”

 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Some people will try to claim that there is not intended to be a day by day comparison here, which to me strains credulity. I mean, He actually MAKES the day to day comparison. Six days and one day to six days and one day. He didn’t bless a seventh undefined very long period of time. He blessed the seventh DAY. To me this is pretty hard to mess up.DOG-READING-A-BOOK-facebook

The Old Earth Creation model tries to say God intended this merely to be a numerical comparison.

This fails for a couple of reasons. First, why does God need to make a numerical comparison? Surely the Children of Israel were smart enough to understand the concepts of six and one without some clever analogy? And if that’s all this is, why does He not do it again when he makes decrees involving six years and one year? Exodus 23: 10-11 says this:For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused.” No reference to creation is made for this six to one ratio.

In fact, verse 12 references the work week and Sabbath day, making a literary “work six rest one” parallel, but not a day for day comparison. In Exodus 21 another “six years and then on the seventh” reference is made, and again no reference to days or creation. Several of these are made in Leviticus 25, but again no reference to creation week, or mention of days as a metaphor for years. What is the point of doing it just that once in the middle of the Ten commandments unless it actually means what it says? In fact, why would God say something He doesn’t mean? I didn’t know God back then, but from what I can tell He has always been a most honest gentleman with no need to lie to anyone. Not only that, but I suspect it well within reason to suppose that God was very familiar with the Hebrew language, Him being Omniscient and all. If this is so, then He would have known that there were other Hebrew words for LONG PERIODS OF TIME so that He wouldn’t have to use the word DAY to mean BILLIONS OF YEARS. But we’ll talk about that more soon.

And the final call is this: Unless you assume deep time at the start and are trying to cram it into the Bible, there is no reason to try to interpret Exodus 20 to mean Billions of Years, or just some pointless metaphor. There’s also no reason to try to interpret Genesis 1 in this manner either. We can just let “day” mean “day.” But there is one more objection before we get all that grammatical. Some people will still try and argue that, while He is very Honest, God simply doesn’t understand how time works. They try to use the Bible to make this argument. You join me next time, and in the mean time, I shall practice NOT rolling my eyes. Odds are six to one that I will be rolling my eyes anyway.

#JesusLovesYou

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Confessions of a YEC and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Odds are Six to One That a Day is a Day- Confessions of a YEC part 7

  1. Brady says:

    You seem to conflate what Genesis 1 says with what Genesis 1 means. There are many passages in the Bible where a literal reading of the text is actually not what the author of said text means. And many scholars argue that Genesis 1 is one of said passages.

    Like

    • Greetings Brady! Thanks for your comment.
      I agree that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, not all of which ought to have a literal interpretation, but this is not the case in Genesis 1. The text, while not wholly free of poetic flavor (what text outside of tax codes truly are?) is not poetic in the same sense that the Psalms are, nor is it told with the style and structure of a contemporary mythology. Furthermore, it is linked directly into the history which follows and there is no separation between the creation account and the histories of Abraham or Joseph as there are between, for example, the parable of the Prodigal Son and the healing of the lepers. Where the Bible is intended to be NOT literal, the separation between literal account of historical narrative and allegory or poem is made clear.

      Many scholars do agree that Genesis 1 ought not be taken literally, but NOT because of the text itself. Rather, those scholars have an a priori dedication to deep time, evolutionism, or some other extra or even anti-biblical stance which forces them to betray the clear intent of the text itself. Hebrew scholars have made clear for decades and through the centuries that the text itself makes clear a literal creation of the heavens and the earth and all living things in six literal days around 6,000 years ago. As for me, I shall not change the meaning of a text to suit my own preconceptions. Let it say what it says and then do what you must with its actual meaning.
      Thanks for your comment.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s