Suggested reading for the science geeks:
http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/biblicalevidenceforanoldearth
http://shop.reasons.org/A-Matter-of-Days-p/b0411.htm
The Hebrew word for day (
yom) can indicate either:
- Part of the daylight hours
- All of the daylight hours
- Twenty-four hours
- A long but finite period of time
This is one of those matters where a superficial reading of a concordance can set you down the wrong track, and a deeper understanding brings you back to the plain meaning of the text.
Yes, "yom" can mean several things, including a long but finite period of time. However, what it means is defined by the context.
Firstly, this is the context for the very first mention of the word:
Genesis 1:5 said:
God called the light “day” (yom), and the darkness he called “night”. There was evening and there was morning, the first day (yom).
Here God creates light, names it "yom" (ie he defines "yom" as meaning the light period of a day, as opposed to night), and then immediately uses this same word to talk about the first "yom". It would be nonsensical if this could be paraphrased as "God defined the word "yom" to mean the daylight part of a normal day, and then there was the first "yom", but now this word suddenly means an enormous length of time that has nothing to do with how it was just defined".
Secondly, the context for every day (at least 1-6) includes the words "evening", "morning", and a number (first, second etc). Throughout scripture, whenever the word "yom" is used in conjunction with any one of these three terms, it clearly refers to a standard "day". Throughout Genesis 1, all three of these are used in conjunction with each use of the word "yom". This completely firmly defines every single "yom" as referring to a normal "day".
Thirdly, we are told in Exodus 20:8-11 to work for 6 "yom" and rest for one "yom" because God created the world in six "yom" and rested for one "yom". Again, this only makes sense if the word "yom" means a literal day. We are not being told to work for six long periods of time and rest for one long period of time.
Scripture is extremely clear on this point. This article has a detailed discussion, explaining from many sources both ancient and modern how there is a very clear consensus among serious scholars from all backgrounds that the author of Genesis clearly intended the days to be interpreted as literal 24-hour days, and why they state this:
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/why-i-believe-in-24-hour-days/
The ONLY reason to believe the days were long periods of time (or to believe the gap theory or any other such view), is in order to shoehorn a pre-existing assumption that the earth is millions of years old into the Biblical account.
The "millions of years" hypothesis has been invented largely to allow time for evolution to occur, and is inextricable from evolution - without evolution the long ages are unnecessary. Therefore the day-age theory has been invented largely in order to fit evolution into the Bible. However, the order of Creation is completely different to the supposed order of evolution - plants come before the sun, birds come before land animals, plants come before sea creatures - even if "yom"
could be plausibly translated as "a long period of time" in this passage, it would make absolutely no practical sense to do so, because it just wouldn't work. This is why the "gap" theory has been proposed as an alternative (inserting millions of years between two verses and shoving evolution in there, rather than attempting to make the account fit evolution). That has its own scriptural issues, which I can elaborate if anyone needs that. But the biggest issue is more fundamental, and comes down to who we choose to put our faith in.
Many people today believe that "scientists" have "proven" that the earth is ancient, and you'd be an idiot to think otherwise. They then believe the Bible must be reinterpreted to fit this view. In other words, they take the words of men as more authoratitive than the words of God, and think the words of God must be reinterpreted to fit the opinions of man.
I am a research scientist by trade. In my experience, theologians and laypeople generally believe in an ancient earth and evolution because they haven't studied it hard and so just believe what they were taught in school. While scientists are actually far more likely to acknowledge problems with these views, because they realise the lack of sound science behind them. I even had an atheistic genetics lecturer at university who freely taught how evolution just didn't work! And I heard of a formal creation / evolution debate between teachers at a Christian school - the theology department arguing for evolution and the science department arguing for creation...
Science has not proven an ancient earth. Nor has it proven evolution. In fact, there is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that both ideas are impossible - but you won't be taught that in school. We live in an atheistic culture that is firmly invested in the idea that God doesn't exist, and therefore all scientific data is interpreted based on the preconception that creation did not occur and the earth is ancient to allow time for life to evolve by itself (if it could even do that). Don't be intimidated by this. In the same way, our culture claims that human-induced global warming is correct, that too is equally unscientific but promoted for political / religious reasons. Don't be intimidated by that either. Real science is entirely consistent with scripture.
Ok, my head's sore, I'm going back to bed... Hope that helps someone!
