Ek is op die oomblik in Maleisië en danksy WiFi en allerhande interessante uitvindsels van hoofsaaklik ateïste, lees ek SêNet vir ontspanning. Ek kry ook elke dag 'n kopie van die plaaslike koerant.
Oor die godsdienstige diskoers hier op die Sê hoef ek niks verder te sê nie behalwe dat onse Kosie hom weereens onderskei as wetenskaplike analfabeet van formaat. Die onwetenskaplike snert wat hy kwytraak is so grotesk dat ek soms vermoed dat hy die gek skeer - geen regdenkende mens by sy volle positiewe kan tog regtig glo dat die 4000 jaar oue vertellings van 'n ongeletterde spul mense iewers in die midde-ooste meer gesag dra as die moderne wetenskap nie. G'n wonder ou Kobus droom van flessies wat wonderbaarlik vol olie word en spesiale openbarings wat net aan hom onthul word nie.
Ewenwel, hier in Maleisië is die warmste godsdienstige onderwerp in die koerant, die planne wat die Moslems in een van die provinsies smee om die Hudud-wette ingestel te kry. Dis nou die wet wat hulle die reg gee om 'n oortreder se hand af te kap as hy/sy steel. Die voorstel is dat die vonnis deur 'n chirurg voltrek moet word maar die Maleisiese mediese vereniging het nou teruggekap en gesê enige geneesheer wat aan sulke barbaarse praktyke deelneem, summier van die rol geskrap sal word. Maleisië is 'n sekulêre staat en al die hoofstroomgodsdienste bestaan heel vreedsaam naas mekaar. Die voorstanders van Hudud bepleit dit net vir Moslems wat beteken dat 'n ander straf vir diewe van ander godsdienste sal geld. Dit veroorsaak nou 'n juridiese probleem. Sommige mense beskou Hudud (heel tereg) as barbaars en agterlik. Gister se hoofartikel in die koerant het gesê dat die instelling van Hudud Maleisië grootskaals sal benadeel en terugneem na 'n ontwikkelingspeil wat hulle met groot moeite ontgroei het.
Kobus de Klerk se voorspraak dat ons die bybel se skeppingsverhaal as 'n wetenskaplike feit moet aanvaar is vir my soortgelyk aan die herinstelling van Hudud in Maleisië. Dis 'n totaal agterlike en stiksienige voorstel wat geen wetenskaplike grondslag het nie maar totaal en al (soos Hudud) berus op 'n primitiewe verstaan van die wêreld om ons. Om dit vir kinders te leer is veel erger as om hulle hande af te kap - dis soos om hulle breine te verwyder en van hulle te vereis om nooit weer vir hulleself te dink nie.
Kobus se godsdienstige kaperjolle is 'n gevaarlike speletjie en het die potensiaal om groot skade aan te rig. Hopelik is sy invloedsfeer beperk tot die Sê.
Groetnis
Thomas
Kommentaar
Hier gaan ons alweer.
Eers Angus en nou Thomas.
Ateïste wat eenvoudig nie kan aanvaar dat daar Christene is wat 'n ander siening van sake het en hul dan van as oneerlikheid en skaamte beskuldig !Is dit omdat baie ateïste in kerke groot geword het waar predikers 'n Tydlose Wese aan 'n 6000 jaaroue en 6 24uur dae skepping verbind het .
En dat ateïste alles in hul vermoë doen om te keer dat HY nie daaruit ontsnap nie omdat as dit sou gebeur die mat in die verband onder hul voete uitgeruk word, net soos Galileo dit eeue gelede onder die kerkvaders se voete uitgeruk het en toe summier vir die res van sy lewe onder huisarres geplaas is.
Dat daar wel ander sienings oor die saak is blyk uit die volgende, wat ek vertrou in sy geheel geplaas gaan word:
Omdat dit so 'n lang artikel is plaas ek slegs deel een, dus tot dag drie van die skepping.
As dit geplaas word sal dit opgevolg word met die daaropvolgende skeppingsdae en 'n bronnelys.
The Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture by Jon W. Greene
Introduction
Genesis Creation Days
Guest author, Jon Greene examines scripture to determine what the days of Genesis looked like. Also included is a brief history of young earth creationism and animal death before the fall.
Rich Deem
Though differences of opinion exist for various doctrinal issues within Christianity, few are more divisive than controversies surrounding the days of creation and the age of the Earth. For Christians who hold the young-earth view, being true to God’s word necessitates believing the universe, Earth, and life were all created in six 24-hour days, six to ten thousand years ago. This is based on the contention that the “simplest explanation of the [Genesis 1] text... is that Moses intended the days to be thought of in the most common sense of that term.”1 Thus, any interpretation that goes beyond a clear plain meaning of the text is considered to compromise Biblical authority and capitulate to evolutionary theories.
One difficulty with this view is most young-earth creationists interpret the Genesis creation account through the lens of the modern English Bible. While English translations can make it sound as though the creation days were 24-hour periods, textual and grammatical elements of the original Hebrew narrative suggest otherwise. Indeed, a literal reading of the Hebrew text provides compelling exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation days. To understand why this is the case, one only needs to consider the chain of translation. From original Hebrew, the text was translated to the Greek Septuagint, to Latin Vulgate, to English Wycliffe, to English Tyndale. However, the King James Version, and finally the modern versions, such as the NIV, NASB, ESV and other modern translations were translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek. Because every language is unique, some of the nuances of the original text have sometimes been lost in translating it into modern English.
The purpose of this paper is to delve deeper into the “days” of creation. This is not an attempt to denigrate the young-earth view, but to follow Paul’s admonition to “test everything and hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). As Jerry E. White, President of The Navigators, states: “I do not condemn those who prefer a young-earth interpretation of Genesis, just as I would not condemn those who see an old-earth solution in the data.”2 Both young-earth (calendar-day) creationists and old-earth (day-age3) creationists consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. Both believe the Genesis creation account is an historical narrative–not an allegory, myth, legend, or poetic expression. And both support an ex nihilo creation and reject Darwinian evolution. Thus, both views come from believers who are merely seeking truth and trying to understand God’s message in Genesis 1.
The problem lies in our external witness. Many unbelievers hold a naturalistic worldview because they cannot reconcile the Bible with science. One of the best ways to engage these skeptics is to use science apologetics to demonstrate the agreement of science and Scripture. However, the insistence on a six-to-ten thousand year old Earth undermines this effort and prevents a large segment of society from taking the Bible seriously. Two Christian apologists state this problem well:
“When the ‘young earth’ creationist insists that the biblical evidence indicates an earth only six to ten thousand years old, all communication bridges to the secular science community break down. The communication gap widens and such reactionary creationist views are labeled as ‘folk science.’ The scriptures and the gospel are consequently dismissed as meaningless.”4
And,
“Many non-Christians are driven away from the God of the Bible by the young-earth claims which are, frankly, ridiculous to most people who love science. It is a shame that people who love science, who would like to know the One who created the universe, reject, out of hand the Christian God, because they see Christianity as so unscientific.5
For this reason, it is important we closely examine the controversy surrounding the “days” of creation. In this paper, we will look at this issue from three perspectives: (1) a brief historical overview of creationist beliefs regarding the creation days, (2) a review of the creation days with an emphasis on the textual and grammatical elements of the original Hebrew text, and (3) a discussion of the “death before the Fall” issue.
BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The prevailing view in the 17th century was the days of creation were 24-hour periods and the creation was approximately 6,000 years old. This 6,000 year time-frame was based on compilations of the Genesis genealogies done by Archbishop James Ussher and theologian John Lightfoot around A.D. 1650. Based on the ages of patriarchs in the genealogies, both Ussher and Lightfoot concluded the universe, earth, and life were created in 4004 B.C.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, new data from geology and paleontology established the earth was millions of years old, which conflicted greatly with Ussher and Lightfoot. In 1857, Philip Gosse (1810-1888), a British preacher and self-trained biologist, proposed a solution to this dilemma. Because Gosse felt obligated to uphold Ussher’s 4004 B.C. creation date, he proposed God had created the world with the “appearance of age”–although the creation appeared to be ancient, it was actually only 6,000 years old.6 For instance, Gosse argued trees were created with growth rings in place, coral reefs were created fully-developed, and rocks were created with fossils in them.7 Although Gosse’s theory was rejected during his lifetime, some young-earth creationists continue to promote the “appearance of age” view, most notably in the area of astronomy.8
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry Green (1825-1900) and distinguished theologian Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921) noted gaps and omissions in the Genesis genealogies. This suggested the creation was substantially older than the 6,000-year timeframe Ussher and Lightfoot had proposed. Today, many Bible scholars hold this view and believe the early Hebrew genealogies provide highlights, but not a complete rendering of each and every actual generation.9 For example, in his expositional commentary on Genesis, James Montgomery Boice states:
“It has been pointed out by biblical scholars, among them no less a scholar than Princeton’s B.B. Warfield, that the biblical genealogies are not necessarily all-inclusive when they list a series of descendants... they may (and in fact do) leave gaps, so that a person identified as a ‘son’ of a person coming before him in the list need not necessarily be a literal son but may be a grandson or great-grandson. Moreover, the gaps may sometimes be quite large...”10
In the mid-20th century, young-earth creationism was rekindled by publications promoting flood geology, creation science and scientific creationism.11 The chief architect of flood geology was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a Seventh Day Adventist who insisted the Flood was responsible for the Earth’s geological features.12 Self-taught and lacking a formal education in geology, Price based flood geology on the teachings of his mentor, Ellen G. White (1827-1915), prophetess and founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. In numerous trance-like visions, White claimed she was “carried back to the creation” and “Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record.”13 It is startling White’s “divine messages” became so influential in 21st century Christianity.
In the 1960s, “flood geology” was co-opted by John Whitcomb’s and Henry Morris’ book, The Genesis Flood, published in 1961. Like Price, neither Whitcomb nor Morris had degrees in geology. Although the book was extremely popular, many geologists were critical of the scholarship.14 The following statement by Christian geologist W.U. Ault is typical of the criticism the book received:
“The writings of these non-geologists [Price, Whitcomb, Morris] exhibit a basic lack of understanding of even the fundamental principles of geology... a number of basic points completely invalidate flood geology... The serious Bible student will not seek to support the physical aspects of Bible history with pseudoscience.”15
Despite the scientific shortcomings of The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris aggressively promoted the book, crisscrossing the country, speaking most often at Baptist churches, but also conservative Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed, and Pentecostal churches. They also spoke at Biola University, Bob Jones University, Dallas Theological Seminary and other seminaries and Bible colleges, spreading the “gospel of flood geology.”16 Today, many Christians accept the Whitcomb/Morris model ignoring, or unaware of, its scientific problems. That is the reason many pastors today still fallaciously preach “flood geology” is the reason “seashells are found on mountaintops.”17
Young-earth creationists often quote a 1984 letter from James Barr, Hebrew scholar from Oxford, to support their view. In the letter, Barr states he knows of “no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university” who does not believe that Genesis 1 conveys the “creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”18 However, that statement is taken out of context. In the letter, Barr clarifies “it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as an appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.” Yet, the reason young-earth creationists cite the letter is to demonstrate the 24-hour day view is a matter of technical linguistic competence.19
The old-earth (day-age) view has many advocates. A two-year study by the conservative PCA Creation Study Committee provides an excellent overview some of the supporters:
“In the 19th century, before Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species and in the midst of much discussion of a geological basis for an ‘old earth,’ Robert Shaw described favourably the possibility of interpreting the days of creation as ages. Professor Taylor Lewis of the Reformed Church of America advocated long ages... as did Donald MacDonald, a minister of the Free Church of Scotland... Of the Old Princeton theologians, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield supported a Day-Age approach, as did also J. Gresham Machen, O.T. Allis, and E.J. Young of Westminster Seminary... J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.... R. Laird Harris and Francis Schaeffer. In his three-volume Commentary on Genesis, James Montgomery Boice...concludes by favoring a Day-Age view.”20
Other Christian leaders who are/were open to the old-earth perspective include: John Ankerberg, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, and Lee Strobel.21 The following comments represent the views of many conservative Bible scholars and theologians:
“Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible and the way the Bible uses words, knows that the use of the word ‘day’ is not limited to twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of entirely undefined length.... There is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours length.”22 – R.A. Torrey (1856-1928),founder of Talbot Seminary and editor of The Fundamentals.
“It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”23 – J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), considered the last of the great orthodox Princeton theologians.
“But then there arises the question as the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”24 – Edward J. Young (1907-1968), regarded as “the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy.”
And,
“[Young earth] creationists insist that the days cover a literal 24 hours, but this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes the word ‘day’ is used with a broader meaning... it can mean a period of indefinite duration.”25 “Any view that makes the earth 12 to 20 thousand years old flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable. In my judgment the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.”26 – James Montgomery Boice, chairman of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy.
THE CREATION “DAYS”
Martin Luther once said, “If I were younger, I would want to learn this language [Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture... For that reason they have said correctly: ‘The Jews drink out of the original spring, the Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, the Latins, however, out of the puddle.’”27 We can only wonder how Luther would characterize those of us who read the Scriptures in modern English.
The debate over the creation days is not about the inspiration of the Bible, or a “literal” vs. “figurative” view of Scripture. Both young-earth and old-earth creationists believe the Bible is inspired and defend their interpretations as being literal. The issue is the interpretation of the text of Genesis 1.28 According to Bruce Waltke, the young-earth exegesis is hindered by an adherence to a “woodenly literal” reading of Genesis.29 Gordon Wenham concurs, stating the problem is “six days has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically, with the result that science and Scripture have been pitted against each other instead of being seen as complementary.”30
Does the Bible demand that we interpret the creation days as 24-hour time periods? To answer this question, I will compare the young-earth and old-earth views of each of the creation “days,” followed by a brief review of the exegetical support for the old-earth view.
Day One: Light
The opening narrative of Genesis 1 states: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. … And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. … And God 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. (Gen. 1:1-5)
Young-Earth View
Young-earth creationists claim Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth) is a summary statement of the work God performed during the creation week. They believe God created the Earth, mature and fully-formed, on the first day.31 According to their view, Earth was alone, suspended in the heavens and the Sun, Moon and stars were created on the fourth day. Thus, the light God made came from a source other than the Sun.
Old-Earth View
Old-earth creationists claim Genesis 1:1 describes God’s creation of the universe (ex nihilo) through the “big bang” event, by which God created all matter and energy and ultimately all heavenly bodies including the Earth, Sun, Moon and stars. According to this view, the narrative shifts forward in time and changes from a cosmic perspective to an earthly one in Genesis 1:2 (the void and dark). At that point, God caused sunlight to penetrate the darkness and illuminate the Earth.
Exegetical Support 1)
The Heavens and the Earth
The verbs used in Genesis 1:1-2 (i.e., God “created” and earth “was”) are in the perfect tense32 and distinct from the wayyiqtol verb form used in the remainder of Genesis 1. As Hebrew linguist C. John Collins33 notes, the wayyiqtol verb functions as “the backbone or storyline tense of Biblical Hebrew narrative discourse,”34 while the perfect verb “denotes an event that took place before the main storyline got underway.”35 Thus, the verb forms indicate the creation of “the heavens and the Earth” was separate from, and preceded, the events of the first creation day.
The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) is known as a merism, where words coupled together have a different meaning than the individual words. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines hashamayim we ha ‘erets as “all the raw materials needed to make sun, planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, molecules, atoms.”36 Similarly, Vine and Grudem each equate hashamayim we ha ‘erets with “the entire universe” and “entire creation.”37 This further supports the old-earth view that the entire universe–including the Earth, Sun, Moon, and stars–were created prior to the first creation day.
2) Creation from Nothing (ex nihilo)
Many young-earth creationists disavow the “big bang” as being strictly naturalistic science. However, it is important to consider the following statement by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (Summit II, 1982) on the relationship of science and Scripture:
“It is sometimes argued that our exegesis should not be influenced by scientific observations. We believe this view is mistaken. While the Bible clearly gives more specific information about our relationship to God than one can possibly deduce from natural revelation, it does not necessarily follow that our understanding of the physical world, its origin, etc., will also be more clearly deduced from God’s revelation in His word than His revelation in His world. Since both are revelations from God, and therefore, give a unified story, it seems quite permissible to consider all of the evidence (scientific as well as biblical) to be significant to the degree that each revelation can be clearly interpreted.”38
The young-earth rejection of the big bang model parallels the Galileo controversy in the 1500s. Galileo observed the earth revolved around the sun, which conflicted with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Psalm 93:1 (the earth being unmovable) and Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 (the sun appearing to revolve around the earth). Through scientific observation the meaning of Scripture was eventually brought into clearer focus. As respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states, “The Big Bang model …dramatically and unexpectedly [supports] the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.”39
3) Let There be Light
Young-earth creationists interpret Genesis 1:3 (“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’”) to mean God created light that instant. This is because English has a punctiliar aspect, which means the reader views the action as taking place at a single point in time.40 However, the Hebrew verb for “be” (hayah) means “to be” or “to exist.” As Collins notes, the verbs in Genesis 1:3 (Let there be... and there was) do not imply the creation of light, or a sense of coming into existence.41 This supports the view that the illumination came from pre-existing light–the sun. There is no exegetical justification for the young-earth creationists’ hypothesis that the light came from a non-solar source God created.
Old-earth creationists use Job 38 to explain the events of the first creation day. Job tells us, when God “laid the foundation of the earth,” He “made clouds its garment and thick clouds its swaddling band” (Job 38:4, 9 ESV).42 Based on this, old-earth creationists maintain the Earth was initially dark because it was surrounded by a dense, opaque atmosphere. Then, in Genesis 1:3, God caused the thick cloud cover to thin, allowing sunlight to reach the Earth’s surface for the first time.
4) Day (yôm) with a Number
Hebrew scholars acknowledge the word translated “day” (yôm) has several literal meanings: daylight, day, time, moment, or long era of time. The question is which definition of yôm did the Genesis author intend? Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary–approximately 3,100 words compared to over 4,000,000 English words.43 In English, we have many words to describe a long period of time. However, biblical Hebrew has no word other than yôm to denote a long time-span.44
Some claim yôm attached to a number (i.e., ordinal, “first, second, third,” etc.) requires a 24-hour-day interpretation. However, Bible scholars dispute that. For example, noted Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer states the ordinal simply defines a symbolic unit of time and “serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical author.” Archer also points out that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew (i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). He states, “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite... Thus they [the days of creation] are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”45
It should also be noted that there are instances in Scripture where yôm used with a number does not restrict its meaning to 24 hours. For example, Hosea 6:2 states: “He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day,” referring to Israel’s ultimate restoration some hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Zechariah 14:7, describing the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated “one day”). The context of Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning at least one summer and one winter, obviously longer than a 24-hour calendar day.
5) Evening and Morning
Young-earth creationists claim “day” (yôm) accompanied by the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” indicates the creation days were normal 24-hour days. However, there is lack of unanimity on this point. For example, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states “These are not ordinary days bounded by minutes and hours, but days of God... The beginning of each act of creation is called morning, and the close of that specific divine act is called evening.”46 I
n biblical Hebrew, “evening” (?ereb) has several meanings, including “sunset,” “night,” or “at the turn of evening”47 and conveys a “sense of gradual cessation or diminishing of activity.”48 “Morning” (b?qer) also has several meanings, including “the point of time at which night is changing to day... the end of night, daybreak, dawn”49 or “beginning of day”50 and conveys a sense of a “new starting of creative activity.”51 Thus, neither term restricts the meaning of “day” to a 24-hour period.
Much of the confusion comes from the King James Version, which combines evening and morning together–“And the evening and the morning were the nth day.” As Collins notes, “Grammatically, the AV [Authorized King James Version] compresses the two events into a sum, namely, the evening plus the morning were a day.”52 This is incorrect. A more accurate translation is found in the NASB and ESV: “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” Note the time period from “evening” to “morning” brackets only the night. As Collins states: “This means that any effort to find this as defining [24-hour] days runs counter to the author’s [Moses] own presentation.”53
That “evening and morning” can be used to represent long periods of time is evident in Psalm 90, which is attributed to Moses, the writer of Genesis. In the Psalm, “morning” defines the beginning of life and “evening” the end of life. Thus, “morning and evening” brackets the entire human lifespan. As Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer states, “Concerning the recurring [evening and morning] formula at the end of each creative day... there were definite and distinct stages in God’s creational procedure... it serves as no real evidence for a literal twenty-four-hour day concept on the part of the biblical author.”54
According to Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar-IlanUniversityin Israel, this is consistent with the way early Talmud scholars approached Genesis 1. He states, “A statement must be made at the outset about biblical chronology of the six days of creation. Any attempt to correlate the biblical text with scientific knowledge must necessarily understand the term ‘day’ to mean a phase or a period in the development of the world, rather than a time interval of twenty-four hours...”55
Day Two: Sky and Waters
The narrative of the second day states:
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters... And it was so. (Gen. 1:6-8)
Young-Earth View
Young-Earth creationists contend this passage states that God created the atmosphere and separated the heavenly waters from terrestrial waters during a normal 24-hour day.
Old-Earth View
The old-earth view is similar, except the events take place over an extended period of time, during which God established a stable atmosphere and water cycle.
Exegetical Support
The English translation, “And God said... And it was so,” imparts a sense of immediacy. However, the Hebrew phrase translated “and it came to pass” or “and it was so” is a waw-consecutive form of the imperfect verb “to be,” which merely signifies a completed action. As Whitefield points out, this indicates the commands have been completed and does not imply the action was completed immediately.56 Thus, although God commanded the establishment of an atmosphere and water cycle, there is no textual requirement it occurred within a 24-hour period.
Day Three: Plants
The narrative of the third creation day states:
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth."... And the earth brought forth vegetation... plants... and trees. (Gen. 1:9-13)
Young-Earth View
Young-earth creationists contend God caused dry land to appear and then created mature forms of all the plant life on the Earth–all within in a 24-hour period. John MacArthur expresses this viewpoint succinctly: “There is no doubt beautiful waterfalls and canyons and other features... were all made in one day... Vegetation of every kind appeared instantly at His word... He created fully mature vegetation with seed already in it, ready to be dispersed... God created plants, not merely seeds.”57 According to their view, the light necessary for plant life came from a non-solar source, because the sun wasn’t created until “day” four.
Old-Earth View
Old-earth creationists contend God caused dry land to emerge from the water-covered earth over eons of time through plate-tectonics and other geological processes. Then, once the conditions were right, God caused plants to sprout, grow, and develop “after their kinds.”58 According to their view, different generations of plants appeared over time according to God’s timetable–each perfectly matched to the environment and the increasing sunlight as the atmosphere continued to gradually clear.
Exegetical Support
The text does not say God supernaturally created (bara) mature plants. The command is in the Hiphil verb form, indicating the land was to be the agent causing the sprouting. The Hebrew “brought forth” (yatsa’) is a completed action (i.e., imperfect verb with a “waw” prefix). This indicates the plants germinated from seeds and grew into mature plants, a process requiring months or years. Some young-earth creationists claim God caused plants to grow supernaturally fast, so that they sprouted and bore fruit in 24 hours. However, that would require that we interpret the words differently than their usual Hebrew meanings and there is no textual evidence to support that assertion.59
Genesis 2:8-9 also speaks of plant growth. It states: “And the LORD God planted a garden... And out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow [tsamach] every tree...” Tsamach means to “sprout or grow,” natural processes that require more than 24 hours to produce a mature tree. Although God caused plants to appear on the Earth and governed the growth processes (i.e., germination, sprouting, seed-production and fruit-bearing), compressing the events of the third day into a 24-hour time period distorts the Hebrew word meanings of both Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:8-9.
Einde van Deel EEN.
Hello Thomas,
Dankie vir jou skrywe daar uit Maleisië. As jy rondom jou in die wêreld vandag kyk, sal jy vind dat oral waar daar een of ander van die Abrahamitiese godsdienste hom voordoen daar siviele stryd en geweld is. The Abrahamitiese godsdienste is seker die grotste vloek wat die mensdom ooit getref het: Omdat dit vir die mensdom só verdelend is, omdat elkeen aanspraak maak op die "heilige waarheid", en omdat hulle hulle godsdiens beskou as n openbaring van god self. Voeg by hierdie toksiese mengsel die sekerheid dat hulle sg. "heilige geskrifte" deur god self geskrywe is, en dan open hulle die poorte van die "hel" in enige gemeenskap.
Die "christelike" VSA is in besit van derduisende atoom wapens, Hebreuse Israel het sy eie atoombom, en Moslem Pakistan het sy wapen van "massamoord". As n fundamentalis van watter aard ookal gaan besluit oor die gebruik van hierdie wapens in n bepaalde situasie, kan jy seker wees wat die resultaat gaan wees.
Maar volgens hulle "heilige skrifte" sal die wêreld mos eendag tog in n vuurbol vergaan, en dus sal hulle in n posisie wees om te kan besluit besluit om hierdie profesie te verwerklik, en daardeur die "openbaring" te vervul! Die" lunatic fringe" christene van die VSA sal dan ook die "tweede koms" so n ekstra stootjie wil gee en die stryd tussen "goed en kwaad" finaal verwelkom!
Beste groete,
Pieter Redelinghuys
Dagsê vrinne
DEEL 2
VAN The Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture by Jon W. Greene.
Voordat ek dit plaas ‘n antwoord op Thomas se kommentaar.
Beste Thomas
Jy skryf “Pieter, ek stem heelhartig met jou saam. Die gif van godsdiens is baie toksies en hou slegs nadele in. Ek kon tot dusver geen positiewe in die geloof aan wensdenkery vind nie.
“FC Boot, jy bewys my punt volledig. Behalwe aanhalings uit die bybel en die opinies van mense gebaseer op die einste bybel van jou, voer jy geen oortuigende wetenskaplik gefundeerde argument aan om jou geloof in jou skeppingsmite te ondersteun nie. Soos ek al dikwels gesê het is jy welkom om te glo waarin jy wil - dit maak dit, ongelukkig vir jou, nie die waarheid nie. Voer net een weteskaplik gefundeerde argument aan wat die huidige oerknal en evolusie teorieë weerlê en ons kan verder praat. Deur bloot versies uit die bybel en opinies van bybelaanhangers te verskaf, geld ongelukkig nie. Rol dus jou moue op en soos Angus sou sê: trek jou wit jas aan, en versamel feite (nie opinies en midde-oosterse verhale nie) wat jou punt ondersteun en verras die ganse mensdom. Ek kan jou waarborg dat as jy daarin kan slaag sal jy minstens 'n Nobelprys verower en nooit weer 'n dag oor geld hoef te bekommer nie.”
Ons is nie hier besig om die Oerknal - spotnaam wat bly vasklou het of evolusie te weerlê nie. Daarom sal jy ook nie in die Bybel wetenskaplik gefundeerde argumente kry waarmee jy kan bewys dat bv evolusie waar of vals is.
Die Bybel is nie ’n wetenskaplike handboek nie.Dit gaan in die Skeppingsverhale oor WIE- WAT en WANNEER gedoen het. As Christene glo ons dat daat voor die ‘Oerknal’ daar ’n tydlose WESE in ’n tydlose dimensie teenwwordig was en nog steeds is, wat wat die oorsaak agter alles was.
Dit is onmoontlik vir ’n menslike wese om die aard en karakter van so’n WESE enigsinds te verstaan of te verklaar omdat ons produkte die skepping is en die skeppers daarvan nie.
Die HOE was vir die vertellers van sekondêre belang, want dit is inderdaad nie die doel van die skeppingsverhale. Dit is die wetenskap wat vir ons vertel HOE dinge werk en gewerk het.
Waarmee ons hier besig is om vas te stel of Genesis so vertolk moet word dat dit inderdaad ‘n 6000 oud aarde en ‘n 6 dag 24 uur skepping ondersteun. En dat dit dus die skrywers se doel was om dit so opskrif te stel.
Dit is nogal verbasend dat die mense met wie se antieke taal ons hier besig is nie so’n siening ondersteun nie. En die skepping eerder as die resultaat van ’n lang proses beskou. Daar kan dus hoofsaaklik net na die taal gekyk word om vas te stel wat die ware betekenis van die skeppingsverhale is.
Day Four: Sun, Moon, and Stars
The narrative of the fourth creation day states:
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,”’ and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Gen. 1:14-19)
Young-Earth View
Young-earth creationists claim God created the Sun, Moon, and stars in an instant.
Old-Earth View Old-earth creationists contend the Sun, Moon, and stars were created “in the beginning” as part of the “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). On the fourth day, God caused the atmosphere to clear so these heavenly bodies became visible for the first time from the surface of the Earth to mark signs, seasons, days and years.
Exegetical Support
While English translations can make it sound as though God created the Sun, Moon and stars that instant, the Hebrew text indicates otherwise. First, the text states God “made” (????h) the lights, not that He “created” (b?r?’) them. Asah expresses the idea of producing something from pre-existing material, not the idea of bringing something into existence that did not exist before (b?r?’).60 Also, the verb asah does not specify when God created the heavenly bodies, only that he completed the action. Second, the Hebrew “Let there be...” does not imply the creation of the heavenly bodies in the sense of their coming into existence.61 “Let there be” is completed with the purpose clause “to separate.” Thus, the narrative focuses on the function of the lights rather than their origin.62 Third, the Hebrew “and it was so” denotes a completed action–that the sun and moon had performed the functions God commanded, serving as signs for years, seasons and days. This could not be accomplished in a 24-hour period. All of these things argue against an instantaneous creation of the Sun, Moon and stars.
It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,63 Vine64 and Grudem.65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day.
For these reasons, many Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as meaning God had made the heavenly bodies prior to the fourth day. Gleason Archer states: “The Hebrew verb wayya`as’ in verse 16 should better be rendered ‘Now [God] had made the two great luminaries...”67 Wayne Grudem states: “[had made] can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before... This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier... or allowed them to be seen from the earth on Day 4.”68 Harris, Archer, and Waltke state: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 1.”69 And, James Montgomery Boice states: “It is not said that these [sun, moon, and stars] were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”70
Day Five: Sea and Flying Creatures
The narrative of the fifth day states:
And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth”... so God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves with which the waters swarm... according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. (Gen. 1:20-23)
Young-Earth View
Young-earth creationists believe God created all the creatures of the sea and birds on the fifth day. They claim everything, both living and extinct, was spoken into existence instantaneously.71
Old-Earth View
Old-earth creationists contend God created sea creatures and flying creatures on the fifth day. These creatures were created progressively over long ages of time–not like a bolt of lightning.72 As creatures died and went extinct, God created new creatures to replace them.
Exegetical Support
The first task of biblical exegesis is to discover the original, intended meaning of the words of the Bible.73 The Hebrew term “living creature” (nephesh khayyâ) means “living animated being”74 or “air-breathing creature.”75According to MacArthur, nephesh literally means that which breathes and speaks of soulish life (i.e., mind, will and emotion) as opposed to merely organic life.76 These sea creatures and nephesh khayyâ may be air-breathing mammals such as dolphins, porpoises, and the like.77 “Great sea creatures” (tannîn) is translated “great whales” in some English Bibles but has a broader meaning, referring to enormous creatures.78 These are most likely creatures the Israelites were familiar with–possibly whales or sharks79 or large crocodiles, which were common in Moses’ day.80 The text does not indicate when fish (dagâ) were created,81 nor does it discuss other types of marine organisms.
As to the flying creatures God created, all we can say with certainty is some flying creatures were created on the fifth day. This may refer to birds or other creatures. The word traditionally translated “birds” (`ôp) means “flying thing” or “a thing that flies.” Thus, it can denote creatures other than birds, such as flying insects or bats.82
While young-earth creationists claim the text indicates these creations were instantaneous, the Hebrew text does not support that view. There is a change from a singular to plural meaning in Genesis 1:20 and 1:21 that is obscured in most English translations.83 The singular words in verse 20 are “nephesh the living” and “flyer.” The plural words in verse 21 come about by the action of a Hebrew word translated “all” plus the plural word translated “by kinds.” Thus, as Whitefield explains:
“Genesis 1:20 refers to a singular kind of ‘air breathing creature’ and a singular kind of ‘flyer.’ The swarm is singular in kind, but a swarm composed of many individual creatures of that kind. . . The two verses in sequence indicate the following: Initially, a single type (kind) of ‘swarming’ creature and a single type (kind) of ‘flyer’ were commanded to exist. Then the numbers of the individual types of ‘swarming’ creatures and ‘flying’ creatures increased, resulting in the use of the plural word ‘by kinds.’”84
It should be noted that these verses attribute the increase in the number of the individual “kinds” to the creative (bara) action of God. God acted in producing new additional kinds.85 This supports the view that the sea and flying creatures in the narrative were created over long periods of time. It is also in harmony with the creation Psalm, Psalm 104, which alludes to the creation and extinction of life, followed by further creation:
When you hide your face, they are dismayed; When you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created [bara] and you renew the face of the ground. (Psalm 104:29-30, ESV)
Day Six: Land Animals and Man
The narrative of the sixth day states:
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so... Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image... (Gen. 1:24-31)
Young-Earth View
Young-earth creationists contend God created all land animals and the first humans, Adam and Eve, in a 24-hour period. MacArthur states this position clearly: “Bear in mind that the creation of Adam occurred on the same day all other land animals were created. All of this occurred in one twenty-four hour period–one revolution of the earth.”86 In their view, Neanderthals and other ancient hominids were human beings that descended from Adam and Eve.
Old-Earth View
Old-earth creationists contend God created land animals on the sixth day. These were created progressively, over long ages of time, beginning several hundred million years ago. God created the first humans, Adam and Eve, much later, around 50 thousand years ago.87 In their view, the hominids, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals, are not human beings and preceded God’s fiat creation of Adam and Eve.
Exegetical Support
The narrative speaks of three types of land animals: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals. The Hebrew word for livestock (behema) refers to large four-footed mammals that are easy to domesticate.88 The Hebrew word for creatures that move along the ground (remes) refers to the locomotion of small creatures–small rodents and possibly small reptiles.89 The Hebrew word for wild animals (chay) means wild or alive and comes from the root haya that conveys living life to the fullest.90 Because this requires the attributes of mind, will and emotion; chay seems to refer to wild mammals. As a result, it is evident the text does not describe the creation of all land creatures–only certain mammals and perhaps some small reptiles. Thus, we can only speculate as to when large reptiles, dinosaurs, amphibians, insects and a host of other land creatures were created.
Some readers of Genesis 1:24 take the phrases, “And God said... And it was so,” to mean immediate action on God’s part. However, these statements simply mean God’s commanded action was completed at some point in the past. It conveys no information about how long ago the action took place or how long it took to complete.91 Thus, there is no textual requirement that these activities were completed within the confines of a 24-hour day. A number of Bible scholars also note the extreme improbability that the events of the sixth “day” could have been accomplished in 24 hours. Gleason Archer comments:
“There it is stated that on the sixth day (apparently toward the end of the day, after all the animals had been fashioned and placed on the earth–therefore not long before sundown at the end of the same day), ‘God created man in His own image; He created them male and female.’ This can only mean that Eve was created in the closing hour of Day Six, along with Adam. As we turn to Genesis 2, however, we find that a considerable interval of time must have intervened between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve... the LORD God put Adam in the Garden of Eden... to cultivate and keep [the garden]... God then gave Adam a major assignment... he was to classify every species of animals and bird ... the garden must have had hundreds of species of mammal, reptile, insect, and bird... It must have required some years, or, at the very least, a considerable number of months to complete this comprehensive inventory of all the birds, beasts and insects that populated the Garden of Eden... [It is] very apparent that Genesis 1 was never intended to teach that the sixth creative day, when Adam and Eve were both created, lasted a mere twenty-four hours... it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four hour day.”92
Similarly, Wayne Grudem notes:
“An additional argument for a long period of time in these ‘days’ is the fact that the sixth day includes so many events that it must have been longer than twenty-four hours... [It] includes the creation of animals... God’s creation of Adam, God’s putting Adam in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it, and giving Adam directions regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, his bringing all the animals to man for them to be named, finding no helper fit for Adam ... creating Eve... The finite nature of man and the incredibly large number of animals created by God would by itself seem to require that a much longer period of time than part of one day would be needed to include so many events...”93
C. John Collins, Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross express similar doubts that the events of the sixth “day” could be accomplished within the confines of a 24-hour day.94 Ross points out that it is useful to note Adam’s exclamation upon seeing Eve for the first time. His remark in Genesis 2:23 is happa’am, usually translated “now at length.” This is equivalent to our expression “at last!” Clearly, this would be an odd statement for Adam to make if he had only waited a few hours for God to create his helpmate, Eve.
Young-earth creationists dispute the fact that hominids existed on the Earth before Adam and Eve were created. However, it is clear that a great number of hominids preceded the appearance of modern man on the Earth, including Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and the Neanderthals.95 These were creatures God created that walked upright, had limited intelligence and later went extinct. The pinnacle of God’s creation, human beings, came later, marked by the appearance of Cro-Magnon Man (Homo sapiens sapiens) about 50 thousand years ago. Unlike the hominids, Cro-Magnon Man is identical to modern man anatomically and exhibits all of the same behaviors, including a spiritual dimension.
The young-earth claim that hominids were human and descended from Adam has no scientific support. For example, recent DNA studies cast a dark shadow on any connection between Neanderthal and modern man. Researchers at the University of Stockholm, University of Glasgow, and the Max Planck Institute studied Neanderthal DNA and concluded,
“The cumulative weight of evidence appears to decisively sever the link between Neanderthals and humans.”96 It should be noted that the genetic fingerprint of modern man, found in the mitochondrial DNA of females and the Y-chromosomal DNA of males, traces back to a single male and a single female.97 This lends amazing credibility to the Genesis account of humanity arising from one man and one woman.
It also negates the claim of evolutionary connections between modern man and Neanderthals and other ancient hominids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nota. In die lig van die jongste navorsing van veral van die Max Planck Institutes is die bevinding verkeerd
EINDE VAN DEEL TWEE
Hoop om by 'n volgende geleentheid die slot van die boeiende artikel te plaas.
Deel 3 van
The Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture by Jon W. Greene
Om enige misverstande te voorkom net die volgende. Waar ek verwys aan die einde van deel twee na die bevindinge van die Max Planck Institute ,verwys ek na die opvattings van die ‘Young –Earth view”. Die ontstaan van die mens is ’n lang en ingewikkelde geskiedenis en baie oermense het saam in dieselfde tydperk en streek gewoon en geleef.Baie het uitgesterf tot uiteindelik die mense oorgebly het wat vandag die aarde bewoon.
Hier is die volledige artikel: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html
Slotopmerking:
Gewone Christene soos myself en miljoene ander hoef nie meer ons hande in die lug te gooi en “evolusie’ en die ‘Oerknal’ as werke van die duiwel te beskryf nie. In Mat. 3:5 wys Jesus Joodse godsdienstige leiers daarop dat niks by God onmoontlik is nie:” As sulke dinge vir God belangrik was, kon Hy mos die klippe wat hier rondlê in ’n oogwink in kinders van Abraham verander het.”
Beste FC Boot,
Beste Angus
Dankie vir jou kommentaar.Jy besef seker teen die tyd dat die ou geykte betekenis en vertolking van die Genesis-skeppingsverhale soos soms van die kansel af gebulder geheel en al verkeerd was.
Dit is jammer dat die webredakteur nie kans gesien het om deel drie in sy geheel te plaas nie.Ek plaas gewoonlik die goed volledig omdat nie alle mense die tyd en geduld het om die skakels waarna verwys word te aktiveer nie.
Galileo Galilei het die kerkvaders verkeerd bewys deur gebruikmaking van die wetenskap.Die wetenskap veral die evolusie en oerknalteorie het taalkundiges gedwing om weereens met nuwe oë na die skeppingsverhale te kyk en geleidelik het daar 'n besef ontstaan dat die vertolking van skeppingsverhale soos opgeteken in die Bybel en vanaf die kansels af verkondig is, verkeerd is.
Jy kan ook as jy belangsstel, publikasies lees op:Fact and Faith Publications (Dr. Michael Jarvis) http://www.factandfaith.co.za/.Kobus sal verstik en na sy asem snak as hy lees wat daar gepubliseer word.
Ook in die Rooms Katolieke kerk is daar beweging.
Op 10 Augustus 2004 reik die Rooms Katolieke kerk ook die volgende verklaring uit: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution.
(Moet asseblief nie volledige artikels vanuit ander bronne aanstuur nie. LitNet kan dit nie plaas nie. Dit is kopieregskending - Baie dankie, Webvoet)
Beste FC Boot,
Angus
Moet nou nie vir jou stuitig hou nie. God kan enigiets maak en enigiets optel - by God is niks onmoontlik nie. Hy het dan 'n vrou van 'n man se ribbebeen gemaak!
Groetnis
Thomas
Beste Webvoet
Ek plaas geen artikel waaop kopiereg is nie.Ek maak altyd seker dat daarvan.Die betrokke artikel verskyn op die internet met die volgende voetnota "permission to publish this work is hereby granted.+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004"
Beste Angus
Hoekom vra jy nie God self nie?
***
Ongelukkig het ons nie die tyd om dit alles te kontrolleer nie. Plaas dus asseblief eerder die skakel.
Webvoet
Beste Thomas
Ook jy het gelees en nie verstaan nie.
Webvoet sê :"Ongelukkig het ons nie die tyd om dit alles te kontrolleer nie. Plaas dus asseblief eerder die skakel. Webvoet".
Omdat jy en Angus altwee hoop ek al mooi groot is, kan julle jul eie naslaan werk doen en dalk lesers ietsie vertel van dit wat daar voor die Oerknal was en hoe dit in werking gestel is.
so" Rol dus julle moue op en sê: trek julle wit jassies aan, en versamel feite (nie opinies en midde-oosterse verhale nie) wat julle punt ondersteun en verras die ganse mensdom. Ek kan jou waarborg dat as julle daarin kan slaag sal julle saam minstens 'n Nobelprys verower en nooit weer 'n dag oor geld hoef te bekommer nie."