Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Michael,
> 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
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Éist le glór Dé."