Creation

What is the Meaning of the Word “Day” in Genesis? Part 2

7 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the first post in this series, we introduced the topic of “days” in Genesis, but there are more arguments that need to be fleshed out.  We will continue using Norman Geisler’s treatment of this subject in his second volume of systematic theology.

Young-earth creationists point out that when numbered series are used in the Old Testament in combination with the Hebrew word yom, they are always referring to a 24-hour day.  Here is the argument:

Further, it is noted that when numbers are used in a series (1, 2, 3 … ) in connection with the word day (yom) in the Old Testament, it always refers to twenty-four-hour-days. The absence of any exception to this in the Old Testament is given as evidence of the fact that Genesis 1 is referring to twenty-four-hour-days.

How do opponents of the young-earth view reply?

Critics of the twenty-four-hour-day view point out that there is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour-days. Further, even if there were no exceptions in the rest of the Old Testament, it would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 does not refer to more than a twenty four hour period of time: Genesis 1 may be the exception! Finally, contrary to the solar-day view, there is another example in the Old Testament of a numbered series of days that are not twenty-four-hour-days. Hosea 6:1–2 reads: “Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” It is clear that the prophet is not speaking of twenty-four-hour “days,” but of longer periods of time in the future. Even so, he uses numbered days in a series.

A further argument of young-earth creationists has to do with the fact that the phrase “evening and morning” is used in conjunction with “days.”

Another line of evidence is the use of the phrase “evening and morning” in connection with each day in Genesis 1.  Since the literal twenty-four-hour-day on the Jewish calendar began in the “evening” (by sunset) and ended in the “morning” (before sunset) the next day, it is concluded that these are literal twenty-four-hour-days.

Here is the reply that is given to that argument:

First, the fact that the phrase “evening and morning” is often used in connection with twenty-four-hour-days does not mean it must always be used in this way.

Second, if one is going to take everything in Genesis 1 in a strictly literal way, then the phrase “evening and morning” does not encompass all of a twenty-four-hour-day, but only the late afternoon of one day and the early morning of another. This is considerably less than twenty four hours.

Third, technically, the text does not say the “day” was composed of “evening and morning” (thus allegedly making a twenty four hour Jewish day); rather, it simply says, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” (Gen. 1:5). Further, the phrase may be a figure of speech indicating a beginning and end to a definite period of time, just as we see in phrases like “the dawn of world history” or the “sunset years of one’s life.”

Fourth, if every day in this series of seven is to be taken as twenty-four hours, why is the phrase “evening and morning” not used with one of the days (the seventh)? In fact, the seventh day is not twenty-four hours, and thus there is no necessity to take the other days as twenty four hours either, since all of them alike use the same word (yom) and have a series of numbers with them.

Fifth, and finally, in Daniel 8:14, “evenings and mornings” (cf. v. 26) refer to a period of 2,300 days. Indeed, often in the Old Testament the phrase is used as a figure of speech meaning “continually” (cf. Ex. 18:13; 27:21; Lev. 24:3; Job 4:20).

There are several more arguments to be reviewed, so stick around.

Mormonism

Mormons… What Have You Consecrated Your Life To?

8 Comments

When Mormons attend the Temple to receive their Endowment they make several covenants.  One of the covenants is known as the Law of Consecration.  It is stated as follows…

“…you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

While Mormon I saw nothing wrong with this covenant.  However, since becoming Christian I have committed my life to Jesus Christ alone, and have started to view things differently.  I have asked myself a few questions… When I made this covenant, who was I committing or consecrating my life to?  Was I promising to give my life to Jesus Christ or was I giving my life to an organization? 

I find the wording to be very interesting… you consecrate your  lives to THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS… an institution.  It does NOT say you consecrate your lives to Jesus Christ.   Why is this? 

When I have asked Mormons about this they usually respond with something to the effect of… “When you are consecrating your life to the LDS Church you ARE consecrating it to Jesus Christ because the church is His representative on the earth.”  However, I find this argument quite weak… for it is these same individuals who are quick to distinguish the church from Jesus Christ when you point out many of the wrong things the church and it’s leaders have said and done.  They will say, “Well, the church is not perfect… it is led by men who are weak and imperfect.”  Why are they so quick to separate Jesus Christ and the Church in one instance yet so ready to tie the two together when it comes to the Law of Consecration? 

I would submit that the only thing one should consecrate themselves to is Jesus Christ… consecrating yourself to anything else is idolatry.  You are placing something else BEFORE Christ in your life.  The first and greatest commandment according to Jesus is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”  Consecrating oneself to anything other than Him and Him alone is certainly NOT being obedient to this commandment.

Darrell

Creation

What is the Meaning of the Word "Day" in Genesis? Part 1

14 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Hebrew word yom is used eleven times in Genesis, chapter 1.  When you read Genesis 1 (and you should before proceeding to read this post), it is clear that the author is describing the creation of the heavens and earth by God.  As the author describes this process, he uses the word yom to denote periods of time that pass between each major creation event.  Here are a few verses (Gen 1:3-8) to show what I mean:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.  And it was so. God called the expanse “sky.”  And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

This pattern continues through the sixth “day” until the initial creation account ends with Gen 2:1-3:
 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
 The word yom can mean several things in Hebrew.  It can refer to a 24-hour period or it can refer to longer periods of time.  Which is the correct interpretation in Genesis 1?
As Norman Geisler records, those who argue that the “days” are 24-hour periods argue like this:
 It is contended that the usual meaning of the Hebrew word yom (“day”) is twenty-four hours unless the context indicates otherwise. The context does not indicate anything but a twenty-four-hour-day in Genesis 1; hence, the days should be taken as solar days.
 (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), 637.)
The response to this view is as follows:
 It is true that most often the Hebrew word yom (“day”) means “twenty-four hours.” However, this is not definitive for its meaning in Genesis 1 for several reasons.
First, the meaning of a term is not determined by majority vote, but by the context in which it is used. It is not important how many times it is used elsewhere, but how it is used here.
Second, even in the creation story in Genesis 1–2, “day” (yom) is used of more than a twenty-four-hour period. Speaking of the whole six “days” of creation, Genesis 2:4 refers to it as “the day” (yom) when all things were created.
Third, and finally, yom is elsewhere used of long periods of time, as in Psalm 90:4, which is cited in 2 Peter 3:8: “A day is like a thousand years.”

(Norman L. Geisler, 639)

These are the just the basic introductory arguments for these views, and much more could be said.  But we have to start somewhere and we will continue batting these views back and forth in future posts.

About the blog

Great News for the Tough Questions Answered Blog

Leave a comment

This week, we are able to announce an awesome new partnership with one of the premiere apologetics ministries in the world:  The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute.  John Ankerberg and his staff have been producing television shows, writing books, and speaking around the world for almost 30 years on Christian apologetics.  My wife and I have had the pleasure of knowing the Ankerberg’s and consider it a blessing.

Their website will now feature a link to our blog and will publish our blog posts as articles from time to time.  We are very grateful to ATRI for this opportunity and we want to encourage all of our readers to visit their website, as it is rich in apologetic resources.  I look forward to working with their ministry as we both seek to knock down intellectual barriers to the Christian faith!

Creation

My Views On the Age of the Earth

17 Comments

Over the past several years, I have moved from believing in a young earth (6,000-10,000 years) to an older earth (4.5 billion years).  I wouldn’t say that I’m totally convinced, but I do think that the biblical and scientific evidence is much stronger for an old earth.  This position, unfortunately, alienates me from some of my evangelical brothers and sisters, but I cannot claim to believe something that I don’t believe any more.

For those who wonder about my views on the Bible, I am a strong believer in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.  I am not, however, convinced that every human interpretation of the Bible is infallible.  We make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret.  Some passages in the Bible are more difficult to interpret than others.  I believe that correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is not obvious.  Intelligent and conservative Christians disagree on the meaning of these passages. 

In addition, I affirm the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation.  I believe that we should read the Bible as the original author intended it to be understood in the historical context within which he wrote.

The issue of interpreting the “days” of Genesis is a fascinating and important issue, but it is not one of the essentials of the faith.  The age of the the earth is not a test for orthodoxy and there are several literal views  of the “days” in Genesis.

Consider this post to be an introduction to several more posts on the age of the earth.  It is my fervent prayer that we will have fruitful and respectful conversations about these issues.  As always, I will welcome comments from all sides.  I look forward to the discussion and I hope I can learn along with everyone else.

Atheism, Evolution, Philosophy, Religion, Truth

Can Naturalistic Evolution Yield True Beliefs About Reality?

15 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Philosopher Ken Samples, in a recent “New Reasons to Believe” (Vol 1 , No 1) publication, argues that naturalistic evolution cannot explain how human beings can have true beliefs about anything.  Naturalistic evolution posits that there only exists the material, natural world around us.

Everything that exists is the result of  random, material processes working over billions of years.  According to naturalists, the ultimate result of those natural processes is the wonder of the human mind.  So why doesn’t this theory make sense?

Samples offers three reasons.  First, “Naturalism postulates a nonrational source for man’s rationality.”  Naturalists believe that nonrational, impersonal, unintelligent, and purposeless processes produced rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful human minds.

But, as Samples argues, every effect must have a cause greater than itself.  This is exactly the opposite of what the naturalists would have us believe!  The effect of the human mind is orders of magnitude greater than its alleged cause, the matter of which it is composed.  Samples concludes that the naturalist “is assuming a trustworthy reasoning process only to conclude that his reasoning is is ultimately untrustworthy.”

Second, Samples argues that “evolution promotes a species’ survivability, not its true beliefs.”  Natural selection, the primary evolutionary mechanism, only selects for survival.  But having true beliefs about the world is not always required for animal survival.  One can think of examples where an animal’s beliefs about its surrounding environment are irrelevant to its survival.

Human beings survived for thousands of years without knowing about the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics or the DNA double helix.  Are knowledge of the laws of logic and geometric proofs necessary for humans to reproduce?  Our knowledge about the world seems to be complete overkill for evolutionary survival.

Third, Samples reasons that “false beliefs illustrate evolutionary naturalism’s epistemological unreliability.”  Many atheists today argue that mankind’s beliefs about God, morality, and life after death are mere evolutionary vestiges that must have served some survival purpose in the past.

It seems that almost all of humankind, through recorded history, has held that God exists.  Evolutionists admit this, but answer that this belief was necessary in the past, but is no longer necessary.  It is left over from man’s earlier evolutionary stages.

But that means that evolution can produce false beliefs about reality.  Naturalistic evolutionists strongly urge that religious beliefs are false, but they also believe evolution produced these beliefs.  Samples asks:

If evolutionary naturalism can cause a person to believe that which is false (such as religiously oriented beliefs) in order to promote survivability, then what confidence can evolutionists muster that their convictions are reliable, true beliefs?  And if evolution cannot guarantee true beliefs in a person’s mind then how does one know that belief in evolutionary naturalism itself is a true belief about the world?

Maybe naturalism is just evolution’s false belief du jour.  There is no way for evolutionists to know!  Now that is some serious irony.

Christians, on the other hand, are able to easily explain the human mind and its ability to have true beliefs.  A rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful God is the source of our rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful human minds.

Samples concludes, “Such conceptual realities as logic, mathematics, knowledge, and truth flow from a supremely intelligent divine mind.”  In this case, the cause more than adequately explains the effect.

Evil, Pain, and Suffering, Free Will, Philosophy, Theology

Who or What Is the Cause of Moral Evil?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In a previous post, we showed that God is not the direct cause of moral evil.  But if God is not the cause, then who is?

Christians answer that free creatures are the direct cause of moral evil.  How does this work?  God gave human beings the power of free will.  Free will is defined as self-determinism.  It is the ability to make choices that are not forced by an external state or condition.

Free will is a good power that God gave human beings.  Nobody marches against free will.  In fact, to argue against free will is to use free will!  Every one of us is happy that God has given us this power.  It was supposedly Socrates who said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”

But there was a price to be paid for giving finite creatures free will.  By giving us this power, God introduced the possibility that we would abuse or misuse this good power.  According to Christianity, that is exactly what happened.  When given the choice to love God or to reject God, humans rejected him.  This is known as theFall.  Ever since the Fall, humans have been actualizing moral evil upon themselves and one another.  Every person who searches his heart for even a moment realizes that they are tinged or stained with evil.  We think evil thoughts and we often act on those evil thoughts.

God is responsible for creating the possibility of evil, but free creatures are responsible for making it actual.

One final note.  Many people, when they hear this argument, blame God for giving humans free will.  They argue that he could have done better.  I’ve noticed, however, that the very people who blame God for allowing evil to exist refuse to relinquish their own free will in order to make the world a better place.  The truth is, almost every person would rather live in this world which contains both good and evil than live in a world where they aren’t free.  Until the critic of God agrees to be the first to give up his free will, his protests ring hollow.

Faith and Works

"For Not The Hearers Of The Law Are Just Before God…"

4 Comments

Romans 2:13 says:

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (KJV)

A few years back I was listening to an LDS General Authority talk about how we need to do more… a better job with our home teaching, visiting teaching, magnifying our callings, etc.   To support his point he quoted Paul… ” Brothers and Sisters we need to lengthen our stride and do more.  If we don’t are we really doing our duty as members of the church?  We must do more!  As Paul says ‘For not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law shall be justified.'”   In a recent comment on The Book of Mormon… Another Testament Tom linked to an article written by LDS General Authority Elder Christofferson here [link no longer works].  In his article Elder Christofferson used this quote from Paul in a similar manner in an effort to emphasize the necessity for good works to enter Heaven.

To be classed among the truly penitent, random acts of obedience will not be adequate. We must properly enter into the covenants and persist in keeping them to the point that our expectation of salvation is affirmed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (see D&C 132:7, 19). It is not simply the promise of obedience in our contracts with Deity that brings grace, but the performance of our promises: “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:13).

What I find most disturbing is the context in which these General Authorities used this passage.  The fact of the matter is they are quoting Paul completely out of context.  Looking at the first three chapters of Romans closely one can see that Paul was not using this passage to emphasize the need for good works.  Instead Paul was using this passage to point out how no one can do enough good works to enter Heaven because no one will ever be able to keep the whole law.

In chapters 1 – 3 Paul builds his case for the depravity of mankind – both Gentile and Jew.  In 1:29-32 he sums up the state of the Gentiles.

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,  30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

In chapter 2 Paul talks about the state of the Jew.  In verse 12 he tells us:

12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law

The Jews, who have been given the law, will be judged by the law.  What must they do to keep the law?  That is the question Paul answers in verse 13.

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

They have to be doers of the law!  How much of the law?  Will they be OK if they keep 90% of it?  How about 99% of it?  James gives us a clear answer.

10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Unless one keeps the whole law they are guilty of breaking it all.  Can anyone keep the whole law?  Can anyone stop sinning?  Paul tells us just a few verses later in Romans Chapter 3 that the answer is clearly no.

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:  14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:  15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

The next verse is one of my favorites because it tells us what the purpose of the law is.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The purpose of the law is to convict us of how bad we really are.  No one can keep all the commandments.  No one is perfect.  The law acts a perfect mirror to tell us just how bad we are and in 3:9 Paul tells us the state that we are all in.

“we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”.

So what are we to do?  Can we ever get out of this situation?  Fortunately in 3:23-28 Paul gives us the most glorious answer:

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;  22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:  23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;  26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.  27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.  28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Emphasis mine)

Romans 2:13 is not given to convict us that we need to do more or work harder.  Those who use it in this manner are lifting it out of context and are using it to support a false works based theology.   Rather the verse is there to tell us that we cannot work hard enough to be saved.  For no matter how hard we work we will always fall short.  We instead need to turn to Jesus Christ and trust in Him for our salvation.  It is a free gift  to all who believe!  By so doing we will be justified freely by His grace without the deeds of the law.  All praise be to Christ!

Darrell

A Christian Apologetics Blog