I wrote Schroeder about this and he sent a very courteous reply. Here is the part of the email that deals with the subject”

‘ “erev” can mean disorder and “boker” can mean order
Nahmanides, also called the RambaN from the initials in his entire name, year 1250 one of the most important commentators on the Hebrew Bible, writes that he learned it from his teachers who learned it from their teachers etc etc etc back to Sinai., the RambaN states this explicitly in his commentary on Genesis. ‘

I have no way of evaluating any of this but then again I think any literal reading of Genesis is problematic especially when it tries to estabish hard facts and leads one to evaluate science in terms of what it says.

My point is that how one interpets something to do with religion is often very individualistic and driven by ideology and a discussion that assumes you are right and others are not will get no where. I prefer not to have a thread get into a religious discussion which led to my comment that such discussions are not productive. If someone wants to believe in a 24 hr day of creation, fine but do not justify it in a science forum or criticize others who do not hold this belief.

The arguments concerning postmodernist critique and semantics aside, the question as to whether Psalm 90 or 2 Peter supports the very wide meaning imposed upon them by day-age creationists and others is a matter of simple logic.

Jerry I see you refer to to Gerald Schroeder’s ideas. After reading some of his work, I found his argument wholly unconvincing and was left with a strong impression of a person attempting to strain meaning. It is actually incorrect to suggest that the words ‘erev’(evening) and ‘boker’(morning) mean order and disorder in hebrew, just as the word ‘abhor’ does not mean ‘away-shudder’ in English. Schroeder is simply using highly questionable etymology to support his arguments.

Your point concerning the existance of the Sun and Moon is also one used by Schroeder. He says:

“Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.”

However, logically, a day/night is subjective human experience of 24 hours (after all the sun shines constantly). Thus the only logical assumption is that a ‘day’ is 24 hours and that the references to evening and morning are the start and end of that period. The sun does not come into it; indeed in e.g. Norway the idea of the dawning of the sun being linked to morning is untenable.

You may be very right and I have no way of evaluating Schroeder’s comments, the legitimacy of his sources nor anything else about ancient interpretations of the language used in the bible. He also says the order of the words is significant and I have no way of evaluating that either. All I am saying is that there is a myriad of interpetations and Schroeder’s is one of them. Maybe this question should be posed to Schroeder. I have written him an email about it and will see if he responds.

What I find ironic is how some people are so definitive about how to interpet the bible from a tradition that emphasizes individual interpetation of it.

There is a lot of ironic behavior in the whole discussion of evolution.

the words for evening and morning have the connotation of disorder and order

Schroeder cites Nachmanides (1194-1270) for this.

The Jewish Virtual Library says Nachmanides’ commentaries are the first ones to incorporate the mystical teachings of kabbalah.

It seems Schroeder’s argument is based on Kabbalistic mysticism rather than historical linguistics.

This is English. Gerald Schroeder who is both a nuclear scientist with a Ph.D. from MIT and a biblical and hebrew scholar maintains that Genesis must only be interpreted using the original Hebrew and the connotations of the actual words used at the time they were written must be considered. Now I have no way of evaluating any of this but one should read his books to see what he says to get different interpretations.

For example, the words for evening and morning have the connotation of disorder and order in the original hebrew so each day as expressed in Genesis could be read as order coming from disorder and not a typical 24 hour day we see during our year. He also mentions for the first couple days in Genesis neither the Sun or the Earth exists so what does a day mean in this context.

The last thing I want to do is start a discussion on this because it would go nowhere and is not really appropriate but that if one is going to start quoting the bible one should realize that there are myriads of interpretations out there (which is why it will go nowhere) and I am sure there are much better forums to discuss it than here.

One problem with that misinterpretation, as aptly pointed out by Ken Ham of AiG, is what then is “a night” as described in the Genesis account? “…And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.” A phrase repeated for each of the six days of biblical creation.

Hi everyone,

I think you can believe that the universe is indeed billions of years old and still doubt evolution. Dr. Hugh Ross (maybe Dr. Gerald Schroeder too not really sure) does not accept Macroevolution and believes that Adam was specially created.

Have a great week guys!

The court cases against ID and creation science can now be used as a legal tool for ID proponents and creationists to matriculate through universities and gain footholds in industry. If they can do the work, their “religious” views can’t be legally used against them. The ACLU must now come to the defense of people like Marcus Ross!

Actually there are a couple of references:

“For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night” Psalm 90 3-5

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” 2 Peter 3:8

The problem with the approach of interpretating these references as meaning – ‘the word “day” in scripture can mean “1 thousand years”‘ – is that the references are simply saying that God, being infinite, is outside of time. In addition, the references are discussing how our time appears to God, not how time is described in the bible. Furthermore, the second reference makes it clear that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord – with that in mind proponents would have to admit that, using their theory, any reference to a thousand years in the bible could mean a day, which is something they do not attempt to do (mainly as this would rightly be exposed as nonsense). As it they were needed, there are also compelling arguments regarding the actual syntax and semantics of the original language used in Genesis.
As much as day-age creationists may want the references to mean something different, their arguments stretch the quotes beyond their actual meaning.