The 24 hour "evening and mornings" ???

Dave Washburn dwashbur at
Wed Aug 30 09:58:46 EDT 2000

> The problem, IMHO, is that folks want to find a way to "work into the
> text" the eons of time necessary to coordinate modern day scientific
> theories with what the Bible clearly communicates.  Thus the development
> of the "day-age" theory, i.e. each day represents an "age" of time (or in
> some cases a "revelatory time"), not a literal day.  This means that you
> *can* wedge 5 billion years (or what ever) into the biblical text.  This
> theory has a long history, but it is clearly out of step with the
> linguistics of the passage.

So anybody who doesn't see these days as "literal" can only be 
doing so for this reason.  In my case at least, you're wrong.  I 
couldn't care less about theories and such.  I'm just out to 
understand the text.  I should also point out that even young-earth 
creationists such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish have concluded 
that there must be more time present in the early chapters of 
Genesis than a "literal" reading would indicate.  So this should not 
be an issue.  If it is, it seems to me that it's only an issue to you.

Dave Washburn
"Éist le glór Dé."

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list