This is supposed to convince us that the universe really is only 6,000 years old. It’s at the website of Jason Lisle — the creationist astrophysicist. He’s now running his own show, after previously working for ol’ Hambo’s Answers in Genesis, and then the Institute for Creation Research. The latest at his website is What Does “Day” Mean? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
In Genesis chapter 1, God reports that He created the heavens and the Earth in a period of six days. Human beings were made on the sixth day, and given the number of generations between Adam and Christ, this must have happened a few thousand years ago. A straightforward reading of Scripture therefore indicates that God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago. But not everyone wants to accept that.
Those un-believers must be fools! Jason says:
Since our youth, most of us have been utterly brainwashed [Gasp!] with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. We are told that science has demonstrated this, particularly by the method of radiometric dating of rocks. Of course, the scientific method by its very nature could never establish such a thing, and is in fact predicated upon biblical creation. [Huh?] But not many people realize this. Hence, even many Christians have fallen into the trap of “deep time.”
Have you fallen into the trap of “deep time” dear reader? Then pay attention! Jason tells us:
For this reason, many Christians are strongly motivated to read the Bible in such a way as to accommodate the hypothetical vast ages proposed by the secularists. And one of the most common proposed mechanisms is to assume that the days of Genesis chapter 1 are not really days at all, but vast ages millions of years long. The idea is often called the “day-age theory.” [M]any professing Christians think that when God said He created in six days, He really meant “six long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years each.”
That argument is sometimes used by old-Earth creationists. Wikipedia has an article on Day-age creationism. Jason continues:
Did God get confused? Did He really mean to say “six long ages” but then had a “senior moment” and accidentally said “six days” instead? I trust that no Christian would take such a heretical hypothetical seriously. [Heresy!] But then some people would say, “Ah, but the Hebrew word translated ‘day’ need not always mean an ordinary day.”
Jason then spends several long paragraphs discussing the fact that sometimes a day means a 24-hour day, and sometimes it means an age or an era. The meaning depends on the context. After an ark-load of that he says:
… Genesis itself states what kind of literature it is. It claims to be a history book. This is stated in Genesis 2:4, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created,…” . The Hebrew word translated “account” (or “generations” in some versions) is ‘toledoth’ which has the basic meaning of ‘origins,’ ‘history,’ or ‘birthing.’ Genesis claims that it is recording the historical ‘birth’ of the universe.
Okay, okay — we get it. Genesis isn’t poetry. Then Jason’s essay gets weird:
And what of the immediate context? Does the text itself indicate non-literal usage of day by stating such? Clearly not. On the contrary, the context here demands that a day is a literal Earth rotation because that is how God defines a day in Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” Notice that both literal uses of ‘day’ are clearly specified in this passage: an Earth rotation and the light portion thereof. That is, God names the light portion of Earth’s rotation ‘day’ – He is defining day as the daylight portion of Earth’s rotation. And then He describes the total day as an Earth rotation consisting of an evening and a morning. God defines the Hebrew word for day in terms of daylight / nighttime just as we do in English.
That’s very nice, but Jason neglects to remind us that according to Genesis, the Sun wasn’t created until day four, so the Earth’s rotation (not mentioned in Genesis) wouldn’t have had any day-night effect. Anyway, let’s read on:
So there can be no doubt that the first day is an ordinary day because God has clearly defined it as an Earth-rotation light/dark cycle in Genesis 1:5. But what about the other days of creation? God knew that people would want to distort those into vast ages. So, he specified that each of the six creation days was comprised of one evening and one morning, thereby disallowing any non-literal usage of day (Genesis 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
This next excerpt may shock you:
So, the context of Genesis 1 disallows any non-literal usage of the word ‘day.’ There can be no doubt that God created in six days, each defined in terms of the light/dark cycle of Earth’s rotation, because that is what the text explicitly says.
Even if you’re convinced that the Genesis creation account says six literal days, that’s not quite the same thing as concluding that six-day creation is an established fact. But maybe Jason’s final paragraph will convince you otherwise. He says:
We must admit that the desire to stretch the creation week into millions of years does not come from the text of Scripture, but from secular thinking. It is always a great temptation to modify our understanding of the text to fit what we think we know. But this is a very slippery slope. After all, we “know” that people do not rise from the dead. Just visit any cemetery. Should we therefore interpret the Gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection as non-literal? That would be heresy. [Gasp!] We would do well to remember the admonition given in Romans 3:4, “Let God be true but every man a liar.”
So there you have it, dear reader. Genesis must be read literally — and believed! If you still have doubts, we hope you come to your senses before you find yourself in the Lake of Fire.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.