One of the foremost claims of YECs I've heard, is that the word used in Gen.1-2 is not the same word in 2 Peter 3:8. Is this true? Well, such a lexical comparison is not definite or logical in the first place, since Genesis was written in Hebrew and 2 Peter in Greek. Moreover, it seemed ludicrous to me to rely on one word so to demonstrate how creditable their evidence is. In any case, I decided to check this out:
As you might have guessed, contrary to what the YECs say, the Hebrew word "yôm" ("day") in Genesis does not exclusively mean a 24-hour period. There is only one word which means "day" in Hebrew, and the same word is used in the Genesis account as in 2 Peter 3:8. Of course the latter was written in Greek, but if one translates it into Hebrew, the Greek version of "day" would assume the same Hebrew form, "yôm."
Now, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon gives the following definitions:
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 11
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
Given the definitions, "yôm" could mean (b) OR (d) in the Genesis account. Who assigns the connotations? God, but we can do least to examine the Biblical context and to infer what He meant. Firstly, sun, moon and other heavenly bodies (Gen.1:14-15) do not exist in prior to day and night (Gen.1:5). Hence, "day" as in a 24-hour period does not exist yet. One could surely argue that the meaning of "day" changes after vv.14-15 in the passage, but that would make the least sense to me. Secondly, early Hebrew word "yôm" is not often used in referring to specific time periods. The prophets, especially Isaiah and Zechariah, use the phrase "day of the Lord" to refer to long periods of time. And therefore, we cannot confine the meaning of "yôm" to (b).
Second, is Young-Earth theory the only way to explain the Fall? I do not believe so. Let us turn to the Scriptures:
"Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." - Genesis 3:22
What does this tell us? That physical death existed prior to the Fall. From the beginning, God intended a creature different from His angels. Creatures able to appreciate Heaven because they once lived on earth. Creatures able to appreciate immortality because they were immortal once. Creatures able to appreciate perfection because they were limited. Thus, the Fall in this sense would imply humanity's fall from her primordial state of spiritual purity.
Third, whether one sticks to the Young-Earth theory or not, it in no way negates or affirms one's salvation. Do creationism vs. evolution debates help illuminate people's paths to God? Or are they merely regurgitations of our self-gratifying theologies?
I'm not advocating one way or the another -- I'm just saying that one must open his eyes and see what's out there. Especially when a pretty good amount of evolutionary evidence is well-established and widely accepted, one cannot forever make assertions without evidence. If we truly fear liberalism, then we must be willing to critically test all things -- including their claims and ours -- and hold fast to what is good.
On a not-so objective note, let me just assure you that in our generation's lifetime, the young flame of the Young Earth flame will eventually cease to burn.
To Science,
A toast to penicillin.
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever.
Amen.
Aha I love your poem to science.
ReplyDeleteFunny that I was just talking about this with my sister today... I'm really not sure what I believe still but since hearing some Creekside elders talk on the issue I've definitely become more open to the possibility of an old earth.