of Genesis 1. It's a somewhat daunting task when you realize we have three different approaches that I'm going to try to deal with in one paper. But as you yourselves have noted, and some of the speakers have noted, there's a great deal of overlap. So I'm able to deal in a framework with the arguments, and not necessarily in sequence, but the way we'll organize this, I will seek first to refute the arguments, and I've divided them into five categories. There's a handout coming to you, Lord willing, that kept disappearing, but I trust that Paul has it. I will deal with the arguments from chapter two, The first two sets of arguments are exclusive to framework. Arguments from chapter two with respect to a topical arrangement and ordinary providence. And then the non-literal arguments from style. After that, the non-literal arguments from structure. And then some of the particular arguments for day age in which Dr. Harris and other day age proponents do not overlap with the non-literal arguments. Then, depending on the time at that point, I will briefly give you some evidence for sequential narrative that takes days in their normal way. And then, if I can, show there's no conflict between structure and sequence. At that point, on your outlines, there are simply other things that the paper deals with that more than likely we will not deal with today. And I will conclude with some questions that up to this point, I believe, have gone unanswered, even though I've been asking them for three years now. So I trust that what we hope will come out of this is a further discourse after you have my framework. So y'all got to wake up before I start. Come on. That's right. They were all here first, and they were warm. You're cold on purpose. That'll help keep you awake. All right. Handouts have been distributed. Refutation of Arguments by Non-Literalists, those are organized under A on your handout there. And I'm going to begin with Chapter 2. I appreciate Dr. Ross' beginning with Chapter 1, but traditionally the framework proponents begin with Chapter 2 and use it as a a grid to establish that Chapter 1 is topical. I don't think Chapter 1 by itself, and I'll seek to establish that, would demand or could even demand dramatically a topical arrangement. I might say that really, I believe personally that Jack Collins in his work on Genesis chapter 2, 4, and following basically establishes that the framework people have no arguments of chapter 2. And I could just commend that article to you, but it's in Tyndall Bulletin, and I don't know how quickly you'll be able to go find it. So I'm at least going to touch it. But I do commend that article to you. as a very thorough analysis that I believe destroys both of these arguments that I will touch on somewhat briefly as we look at it at this point. Of course, you heard yesterday from Dr. Ross. The general argument is that Chapter 2, though having the marks of sequential narrative, is really to be arranged topically. He follows Dr. Furtado on this, who says that, although a chronological reading of Genesis 2 is the prima facie reading of the text, in light of internal and external considerations, such a reading is not allowable. The external considerations is that there's supposed to be a conflict between Chapter 2 and Chapter 1. Internal had to do then with the arguments that were set forth by Dr. Ross yesterday, plus some other things that Dr. Furtado has added, or has, he calls this a dis-chronologized account. But as Dr. Ross told us yesterday, that is not the reading in the English or the Hebrew. In the English it's clear enough, a sequential reading, but when you go into the Hebrew of Genesis chapter 2 beginning with verse 4, the grammatical structure is such that it is impossible to escape sequence. And this is due to the very unique structure of The chapter itself, and I believe, although they admit the structure is there, that the proponents of framework fail to deal adequately with the structure that we find in chapter 2, verse 4. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. By the way, open your Bibles. Get them ready. We're going to be trying to look at a number of different references as we go through here. And as has been pointed out, verse 4 begins the first major section of Moses' account of this history in Genesis. And as such, introduces not a summary of the whole, but invariably picks up piece of a part of the whole to start the next narrative but you could look for example in Genesis chapter 6 we get a brief introduction of Noah and the corruption of the earth and then in verse 9 we get this toad off this and the these are the generations of Noah and there's a little bit of a summary of what has been said in the previous and then it moves to forward into a new section. So even if Genesis Chapter 2 were topical, it really could not say a great deal about Chapter 1 because of the unique structure of the Toledoth. And you can go through, not all the Toledoths look backward and pick up certain themes, but a good number of them do. Genesis 5, Genesis 6-9, for example. And so if If Dr. Ross and Dr. Patato were correct about the topical analysis of Genesis Chapter 2, it still would not have any warrant to shed a grammatical or structural light on Chapter 1. But furthermore, what we find in Chapter 2, as I've said, is clearly a sequential narrative. The verse that then is brought up to object to this is 219, which gives the impression that Adam was created before the animals. But again, in Dr. Collins' paper, on the consecutive use of memory, we can talk about the Vav consecutive or the WCI or the Vav Getol. The vav consecutive is the easiest way for non-Hebrew people to remember it. It's a grammatical structure that, as you often see it translated in English Bibles, you don't just find the am, you find then. In your English Bibles, that's the vav consecutive, most often being translated and it's linking the narrative. Now, the new, the NIV in 219 says that the Lord God had formed man, or animals. And that is what we call in English a clue perfect, which simply goes back and takes an action that is previous to the action being recorded. That can be a past action, a present action, but it's an action previous to that. And there are good narrative and grammatical reasons why at times the text does this. in order not to lose the main emphasis of the narrative, which in this case is Adam in the garden. But to get the animals back into the picture, we get this backward look with the same grammatical structure. This is established throughout the Hebrew grammars. This verse is given as an example. And a great number of commentators, past and present, take 219 as a pluperfect. Thus, there is no problem with the two narratives conflicting. This is simply the way that narrative is written. In a moment, I'm going to show you another example in Moses where he does exactly this thing with a pattern very similar to chapter 2. And so, there's no problem here. It still is sequential narrative. It's a process that Moses uses a great deal, a grammatical point. But we also, and this is how I would order the chapter, and it was interesting as I was doing this and I read Dr. Collins' paper, and I'm always glad when a Hebraist says I'm right about something. So, I think we have in verse four, the first heading, it's used 10 times. Actually, I think it's used 11 times, but 10 times clearly as a heading. And then we have a backward look, which is recorded for us in verses 5 and 6. Interestingly, in 5 and 6, you will not find the Vav consecutive. It's clearly, by the grammar, topical. But verse 7 begins then with the Vav consecutive. And 7, 8, and 9 are a sequential discussion of man and the garden, which I believe is what 2, 4, and following is all about. Man and the garden. I agree with Dr. Collins that here Earth is talking about the land at least in the vicinity of the Garden of Eden. I believe the chiasm to which you directed our attention yesterday not only ties verse 4 together, but it's very rare to switch from heavens and earth to earth and heavens, and I believe that the emphasis there is on earth as the land where God's covenant transactions are going to take place. And so, the narrative develops that way. Then what you have, and again, grammatically it's marked out. Verses 10 through 14 are a parenthesis. They don't have an evolved consecutive. God now takes some time to talk about the beauty of the garden. which covenantally is very important. What God is showing us there is that Adam, who was perfect himself, was placed into an idyllic situation. If anybody could have served God and kept the covenant and were in a place to do so, it was Adam. And thus we see the beauty of the garden. We see the garden had plenty of water. We see the garden was wealth, full of wealth. And we have this great description. Then verse 15 picks up again with the vav consecutive. Now, I think it is used, in a sense, as a pluperfect there. We go back, since we've had this lengthy parenthesis, we pick up with man again being put in the garden. Now, he stated that, but he could have stated another way. But he uses the vav consecutive. Now, to get back up to the main line of the narrative, God has put Adam in the garden. The rest of Chapter 2, then, is sequential narrative. Now, the parallel is Exodus 10 and 11. Verses 24 through 29 are evolved consecutive sequential narrative description of Pharaoh summoning Moses and speaking to him. and concluding with Pharaoh's threat and Moses' response. And then in verse chapter 11, verse 1, we get a parenthesis. Obviously, as you read through this, this is going back now to what God had already said to Moses. It's the exact same grammatical construction as Genesis chapter 2. It's a three-verse parenthesis, verses 1 through 3, and then verse 4 picks back up. with the narrative. So this is something that Moses does in his narrative, and there really is no reason at all, grammatically or structurally, that we could take chapter two topically. And that also then deals with Dr. Fatato's other argument that Dr. Ross did not mention, that is to really have a topical arrangement, two-tiered arrangement, vegetation and man. Well, in fact, the defects to which they refer are not vegetation and man, but rain and man, water and man. And so there's actually a, if there was going to be a true consistency with the topical analysis, it would be that God gives water and God gave man. That would be the two-tiered topical arrangement according to the supposed deficiencies that we find, that there were no plants because there was no rain and no man. And so I do not find any evidence to take chapter two in any other way than Moses often wrote history in a sequential way. The other argument from chapter two then comes from Verses 5 and 6, which those of you that were not here yesterday, now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, no plant of the field was yet sprouted, for the Lord had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. And Dr. Klein and Dr. Petados and Dr. Ross's premise upon this is because of these twofold, quote, deficiencies, are defects in the ordering of creation. There's no problem with that. We know that it did not come to be very good until it was completed. But since God, according to them, was not going to put any plants on the earth until he sent water and man, this teaches that God's normal manner of operation, his modus operandi, was outside of special acts of creation, was simply to preserve and govern the creation by ordinary providence. Now, there are a number of reasons why we would not accept this line of reasoning. I've already alluded to the grammatical structure of the chapter itself. And from that, we gather that God's not talking about the whole earth. He's not talking about day three. He's talking about the land. It seems, I think Dr. Collins is correct, on day six, and that on day six, as God began to put the process of putting man into the garden, the garden was not yet formed by God because there was no rain, and Dr. Collins argues it was not the rainy season. And then we have in verse 6, but, whatever it was, aid, which I think when you look more carefully at the parallel in Job 36, 27, is the parallel points to aid being a body of water as it has traditionally been interpreted in Genesis chapter 2 and not rain cloud, but again it really doesn't matter what it means because again we could take the conjunction, the vav, the word translated and, and again Moses often uses that in a slight adversative sense. And so even when Dr. Furtado argues that well it's nonsense to say that there was this problem and there was rain. You could simply say but There was water, and he goes on to describe that water in the garden in a remarkable fashion. So much water that four rivers came out of this one river. That is a natural phenomenon that is probably unobservable any other place in all of natural history. And thus the garden had plenty of water. So the very structure points that This twofold deficit really is not talking about the creation itself or any pattern by which God approached Genesis, the work of creation in Genesis chapter one. Go to number four there. No proof that providential working was exclusive. This is very important. Moreover, if his interpretation of 2.5 were correct, it does not disprove the chronology of Chapter 1. Let me back up and get Dr. Young's comment. First off, the emphasis on Genesis 1, 9 through 13. Young says with respect to that section, this is the section that Klein deals with when he says that you just It would be very strange. Let me just read you what Klein says. I'm trying to cut corners here for time and create more problems. He, if embedded in Genesis 2.5 and following as a principle that the modus operandi of the divine providence was the same during the creation period as that of ordinary province at the present time. He applies this to the creation of plants on the third day, hence the 24-hour day theorist must think of the Almighty as hesitant to put in the plants on Tuesday morning because it would not rain until later in the day. It must, of course, be supposed that it did rain, or at least that some supply of water was provided before Tuesday was over for the end of the day the earth was abounding with that vegetation which, according to Genesis 2.5, had hitherto been lacking. Young points out, with respect to this section in Genesis 1.9 and following, that such supernatural intrusion was certainly present in the creation of man, and the only works ascribed to the third day are creative works, not those of ordinary providence. Indeed, on no viewpoint can it be established that ordinary providential working prevailed on the third day. The only works assigned to this day were the result of special divine creative fiats. If ordinary providence existed during the third day, it was interrupted at two points by divine fiats. Even apart from any consideration of Genesis 2.5, therefore, it cannot be held that the present modus operandi of divine providence prevailed on the third day. And it continues. Well, Lee Irons, in a paper on framework, says that Young is wrong here because he doesn't understand what they're saying, and that they're not saying that there were not fiats. But I think they've misunderstood Dr. Young. What Dr. Young is saying, that the drying of the land was a consequence of fiat and not providence, and that's very clear again. in the structure of Genesis 1, 9 and following, God divided and made dry land. In the Hebrew word, there is dry land. It's not the land dried. And thus, it was a fiat act that dried the land and not a normal act of providence. And that's what Dr. Young, I believe, is pointing out in that point. We also could look at the parallels I'm going to skip over some of the parallels with subsequent redemptive history. You could go to Exodus 14, 21, and 22. Now, to say that because there was ordinary providence in this one example, if you were correct, in Genesis chapter one, that the goddess Modus Operandi was ordinary providence in chapter one is refuted by the fact that in the rest of history, which is marked by ordinary providence, there are clear acts of extraordinary providence in redemptive history. Now, if God operated that way then, then who in the world are we to assume from one statement that God would not have had supernatural intrusion even providentially? And of course, the good example is the children of Israel in Exodus 14, 21, and 22, crossing the Red Sea, which was dry land. If it had dried out providentially, not only would the wheels of the Egyptian chariots have been messed up, but those poor two million people would have sunk down to mud to their knees. It was dry land that God supernaturally made as they passed through on the ground. And so what he is insisting to have taken place in the most unique supernatural act God did outside of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, is contradicted by what we find in other sections of redemptive history. Furthermore, Dr. Klein's reasoning involves a logical fallacy. One may not prove a truth of a universal from the truth of a particular. You can go back to your logic books, look at the square of contradiction. It's fine if you have a universal from that to make a statement about the particular, but you may not take a particular, which is at best what you have according to his interpretation of Genesis 2, 5, and 6, which, by the way, is a very small minority opinion. You read again the ancient and the modern commentators Hardly anybody takes this as a twofold deficiency going back to day three. Now, it's a difficult passage, and so you're going to find any number of comments about to what it does refer. But it's simply a very rare, more rare than the Hebrew words used in Genesis chapter one. You're not awake yet. It was a joke. See, my humor is as bad as yours, Jack. You got more laughs than I did. Okay. I could say something about that, too, but... So, let me give you an example that I actually had written this before last year's baseball season, but it's all the more appropriate now. One may not argue that because many of the best professional baseball players are from Latin America, that all best professional baseball players are from Latin America. As the men from St. Louis smile about the Irishman. Therefore, particular evidence of ordinary providence during creation may not be used to prove universal ordinary providence during creation. And in fact, Genesis 1 teaches the operation of extraordinary providence during creation. Only if God had created everything fully at once would there be no place for supernatural preservation. The natural order of creation through which the spirit normally preserves and governs is dependent on the whole ordered cosmos. Surely Genesis 1-2 is assuming extraordinary providence. when Moses describes the spirit hovering over the original fluid mass at creation, preserving, separated at the command of Christ, and perfecting. The act of the separation of light and darkness on day one was not an act of ordinary providence. It was a supernatural act of God. And I give other examples from the text, where I believe Genesis chapter 1 teaches itself extraordinary providence. And then, of course, we really have here, I believe, as does Dr. Young and many others, a major theological blunder. The scripture and our standards and our theologies following the scripture are quite clear. Creation and providence are two distinct acts of God, and that we ought not to expect a great intermingling of providence within this unique act of creation. Now, the standards might be wrong. But the standards clearly distinguish with respect to the acts, and I think to simply move into this unique act of God, providence, as the modus operandi, is a theological mistake. Well, those are the arguments from chapter two dealt with briefly. Let us go on now to the arguments from style. Components of the non-literal view maintain that the literary style and metaphorical language demand a non-literal interpretation. We really heard that yesterday from all three of our speakers. Dr. Klein says literary character genesis one prepares the exegete of one I'll use it as Dr. Ross did, prepares the exegete for the presence there of a stronger figurative element than might be expected were it ordinary prose. This passage is not, of course, full-fledged Semitic poetry, but neither is it ordinary prose. We find Dr. Collins saying, with respect to the language We note further that the very kind of language used here is different from what we think of as ordinary Hebrew narrative, such as we find beginning in Genesis 2.5. The best term for this kind of language is exalted prose. By this, I mean that the language is higher than ordinary language, just as we find that the language of a very traditional high church liturgy is mostly different from the language we use in the street. The language here is stylized, very broad stroke and majestic. we find a number of unusual words, and the anthropomorphic description of God's activity also contributes to these effects. Dr. Ross suggests that without the sun, time would not be reckoned in the same way as later. He says, as there is no sun at this point in time, No moon, no stars. In days one through three, we have a non-standard, a somewhat metaphorical or extended use of the terms involved, since they are being used without their normal implications. I'll start there. That seems to me to be a non-sequitur. It does not follow. Does it really follow that the time indicators are used metaphorically because there is no sunlight? There's nothing again about the text in its particular part or its wholeness that would suggest that. In fact, in Exodus 10.20, we're told that there was this supernatural darkness in the land of Egypt, not for some indefinite period of time, but for three days. Now, there was no sun to mark out that time, but the text tells us that it was for three days. So you cannot necessarily say because there is no sun to mark out the time of the first three days, that the language, at least suggestively, is metaphorical. On your sheet there, I say, stylists still prose with, and I don't mean, I was typing this hurriedly yesterday when I thought Dr. Smith was not going to be here last night, with mostly usual language. is what I intend to say there. I gave an assignment to Stuart Patterson's English class, the average age is about 95, and not that he's quite that old, but I asked him to go home and read the text, come back with a list of words that they did not understand, and then to look them up in a dictionary and see what their meaning was. Well, they were beaming when they came back. He doesn't give them homework. So I did, and they did it, and they were so excited about themselves. They got affirmed. They came back, and there were no difficult phrases there for them. That's not to deny that there are some words not used frequently in the Hebrew. But the English translation, which is, for the most part, a very good translation of the Hebrew, If I had given them the Anglican prayer book and asked them to compare the two things, they immediately would have noted the difference. I don't see this as a high liturgical style. It is simply Moses' style of writing narrative. Go look at the other pericopes of Mosaic history. You'll find the same level of anthropomorphisms. God sees. God says, God came down in a body form and ate with Abraham and Sarah. That's just how history is written, and you'll find no more level of metaphor and rest of the Mosaic narrative than you find here in Genesis chapter 1. Do it. And then if I'm wrong, show me that I'm wrong. But the arguments from style seem to me to be weak because there really is no difference here in style. Now structure. We'll come to that argument in just a moment, but the pros here. And then we have to recognize that we're dealing with a unique, as has been pointed out, irrepeatable event. In fact, we should expect more extraordinary language. We could expect words used only here in the Hebrew because Moses is describing something that God hadn't done before and will never do again. But we don't find that pattern here. We find a pattern of sequential narrative written just in the way that Moses writes a great deal of his historical narrative. Others talk about the anthropomorphisms of the chapter and of the time indicators. Now, it's interesting here. I don't quite know where Dr. Collins is on this. He still uses the word anthropomorphism in his most recent paper. He has changed, I think, from anthropomorphic to analogical days. But he still then goes back and uses anthropomorphisms. I don't know if he has given up on that concept or what. But I ask you, are there more anthropomorphisms or less in Genesis 1 than Genesis 2 and 3? Well, you can go look again for yourself. 2 and 3 has more unusual anthropomorphic statements than Genesis chapter 1. once you take into account that Moses frequently uses God seeing, God coming down throughout narrative. But the more unique forms, such as breathing the mouth of Moses, building a woman from the side of Adam, a serpent that in some way communicated audibly, which I don't think is anthropomorphic. becoming a seamstress and making garments. The chapters are full of them. You don't find that level of anthropomorphism in Genesis chapter one. But furthermore, and this is very important, the term, and by the way, I shouldn't assume, anthropomorphism is when God uses the forms of human beings in order to describe something that he is or does. and thus the two Greek words, the form of man. The term, however, refers exclusively, and again, you can challenge me on this, that's fine, bring me the examples, to terms describing God and his work. We may not apply it to other phrases or descriptions. God is eternal, but once he created time and space, his operations within time and space are in time as we understand it. Again, just give me other examples. where God's operations in time are on a higher level than that which we would expect. Throughout scripture, historic markers are very important, and there are examples in scripture in which the time markers of God's work, and there are no examples where God's work is described in time as anthropomorphic. Time descriptions are not anthropomorphic. There are indicators in which God has condescended to act in history. Once God created time, anytime he has come into time and space history to deal with his people, it's always been time used literally, realistically, as you and I would read it and understand it. E.J. Young points this out. He says that whatever else you're going to call this, yet have figurative or metaphorical or poetical language, it is not anthropomorphic. Our other speakers have gone on to say that the time indicators themselves are figurative. And they all seem to agree on this. Dr. Klein argues circularly that the specific evidence for the figurative character of the several chronological terms in Genesis 1 has been repeatedly cited. The word day must be figurative because it is used for the eternity during which God rests from his creative labors. The day's subordinate elements, even in morning, must be figurative, for they are mentioned as features of three days before the text records the creation of those lights. You see how, in a sense, he begs the question. He is assuming it's kind of like the geologist approach to uniformitarianism. And that in itself, I believe, falls on itself as a great deal of proof for time indicators. major attack on it that we heard yesterday is the seventh day. And because the seventh day does not have evening and morning, and it is not concluded then with evening and morning the seventh day, that we are to understand the seventh day as a non-literal day, and thus we are to think of rest of the days as non-literal days. Well, in the first place, even if the seventh day were non-literal day, that proves nothing about the other six days. The most it proves is they also are eternal days. They're not saying it's an analogous day, they're saying it is an eternal day. And thus, you're not saying it's an eternal day. Again, the reasoning backwards from that is not just to a figurative language, but to old days that are totally different from days that we would understand. But we recognize that, for example, in Romans 7, 21 to 23, that scripture uses the same phrase in a very tight paragraph in a number of different ways. So even if the seventh day here were a different day, totally different in character from the other six, We couldn't argue back, no more than we can argue back from Eretz in verse 1 to say that Eretz in chapter 1.1, that Eretz land in chapter 2 is necessarily the entire terrestrial globe rather than the land in the immediate vicinity. We know that from the context, we must understand how days are used. But furthermore, there are many arguments that were to take the seventh day from a man's perspective, man's experience as a normal day. The absence of the formula used for the other six days is in part explained grammatically. I want you to note this. The phrase evening and morning links the days, the day that is concluding with the next day. You'll see this spelled out in Casuto and in Kyle and Dalich. And so it is a hinge. For example, the morning that marks the end of day one also marks the beginning of day two. And thus, evening and morning serves as a time hinge throughout Genesis chapter one. That explains grammatically why we do not find it at the end of day seven, because the count is not going into day eight. It would be wrong to put the hinge there at that place. And so, grammatically, there is, at least to my mind, a good reason why it has been omitted. John 5.17 and Hebrews 4.3 and 4 do not prove that the seventh day was not a literal day. All John 5.17 seems to teach us that God's rest on the seventh day is a pattern for our Sabbath keeping. Since he did not cease from all work, we are not wrong to do acts of piety and mercy on the Sabbath. My understanding of Hebrews 4.3 and 4, the seventh day is an expression of God's eternal rest that he offers to his people. I would agree that God's rest from creation is permanent and that the seventh day of creation is a picture of the eternal rest promised to Adam at the end of his probation. This theological significance, however, does not necessarily preclude that the day is a literal day. See, I don't want to turn it around and say that God rested. In his rest, God declared to man eternal rest, but that God appointed the seventh day as the type of the rest. That's how types work. They go from a day backwards, not from God to time. And so, yes, God's rest, he rested. That rest is eternal. He has established in that rest the resting of man. And he renewed that rest after man broke the covenant of works, and he appointed the seventh day as the type of that rest. I would have you note in verse 3, it is not God's rest that was blessed. It was a specific created thing. It was a day. God needs not bless anything that is God. God needs not bless his eternity. His eternity is blessed because it is God. When God blesses something in the Bible, it is distinct from God. And here we clearly see that God blesses a day. The open-endedness is further explained because a day was appointed to be typical. And we see Moses doing exactly the same thing with Melchizedek. He gives us the story of a real human being who was a priest, and he leaves out a number of significant narrative features that we would expect. We don't know about his origins, his parentage, or his death. Why? Because in God's wise providence, Melchizedek was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the writer of the Hebrews will then argue from the absence of the text typical points that Christ is the true fulfillment of the order of Melchizedek because Melchizedek has no origins or end. He's a type of eternal priest. He did not receive his office from his parentage but by the oath of God and thus he's a picture of Christ. So we see again a Mosaic narrative functioning exactly in the same way. And of course we have to go deal with Exodus chapter 20 verse 11. which, again, all of our speakers have used to show that Genesis 2, 1 through 3 is not to be taken as a literal day. Thus, we don't take the other six days as literal days. Joel Weeks says a far more crucial case of appeal, Genesis 1, is found in the Fourth Commandment. There the reason for the pattern of six days of work and one of rest is the activity of God in creation. Manage to imitate the model set by God. The notion of the precedent-setting role of the creation reappears here again. This passage provides a crucial problem for the framework theory. The non-literal approach argues that the six days are not to be taken literally, but are merely a framework in terms of which events are reported. Why is this framework used? Sometimes, when he goes on to talk about the However, the fourth commandment says the precise reverse. God's activity is not described in terms of man's. Rather, man's work week is shaped by God's activity. What can we infer about the narrative in Genesis 1 from this reference? At the very least, there has to be some sort of divine activity which man can imitate. Further than that, it has to be an activity that is adequately represented by a pattern of six days of work and one of rest. speaks more particularly to the framework use of the commandment. Casuto points out in Genesis 2.3 that this is not the understanding of the word made. He says that the term make is used to define the term create. With respect to the grammatical relation of the two verbs, the second verb, make, comes to elucidate the particular sense in which the first is to be understood. Name an act of creation. namely an act of creation that is also a making, that is a wondrous work, implying the making of things that never existed before. Now I quote him from 2.3 because it is 2.2.3 that 2011 is referring. And 2.3 clearly describes asa, the word make, as an explanation of bara, a clear word, for God's supernatural creative activity. What we have in Exodus 20.11 is indeed a pattern, but not an analogous pattern, a pattern that God created in six days. He rested on the seventh day. His rest was open-ended, but the day itself was appointed as the type of that rest, and that's exactly what we find in Exodus 20.11. Does the reference to God nepheshed himself, refreshed himself in 31.17 argue against this? No. That's a clear anthropomorphism. We know by comparing Scripture with Scripture that God does not need physically to refresh himself. And thus we then know to look for the parallel of contemplation and delight which God took in his creation. But where are the parallels of analogous time in Scripture? Where else do we find such patterns of time that are not to be taken in a normal and literal sense. I also would just simply ask the question, where did the pre-Genesis, pre-Mosaic cultures get the idea of a seven-day week and the seventh day being holy? If, in fact, what we have in Genesis chapter 1 is a literary device, either analogical or framework or day-age, And how in the world did all of the cultures throughout the world have a seven-day week? Why was the seventh day a sacred day in many cultures that did not have the Hebrew revelation? We have, for example, no evidence or proof that Homer knew anything about Moses, but you know in the Iliad the seventh day is a sacred day. You find this throughout the cultures and histories of ancient people. Where did it come from then? If it was not The same way that creation stories and the flood stories circulated amongst the heathen who had descended from the righteous line and apostatized, if there was not a weekly act to know this, nobody could have had a week until this was revealed as an analogy. That's a question, it seems to me, that needs to be answered. Now I'll skip over Dr. Collins. When we go to structure, The main argument from structure, we won't go into the parallels, they're there, but they're truly not exact, and you can see that in Wayne Grudem's Theological Systematics Theology, and in Dr. Young, where they point out that, yes, we've got a general pattern, but we don't have an exact pattern. But we'll go to the arguments of days one and four, which are the arguments, again, that I think at least two of our speakers agree on, when they say that We really would have a problem here of just simple repetition if these events did not occur together. Dr. Furtado is the first to begin to develop this argument. He says that day four simply brings us back to the events of day one on another explanation of those days, which, by the way, essentially destroys one-third of the parallelism of the other structural argument. because days two and five and three and six don't have this unique element. They are the days of kingdoms and rulers, which I think is also far-fetched. I find nothing in the text to say that fish or birds rule over the sky or the sea or that the animals rule over the earth. That is something that's imposed. Man rules over all of it, and that's the climax of the text. It breaks the pattern of their other argument, and then it argues that, it's a simple repetition, but look quickly at Genesis 1.1, and I'll show you the differences. There was darkness. Verse 3, God said, let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Now, in the first place, the question's been asked, well, God needed to create heavenly bodies to govern the light and it was wrong for God to call the separation of light and darkness good. He doesn't call the separation of light and darkness good. This is the only instance in the formula of all six days that the it was good was put before the completion of that discrete fiat. Now why is that? You see, because the other part was incomplete, which is the reason, for example, on day two that there is no it was good. That was a preparatory act that would not be completed until day three. And thus, it's the only day it was good as left out. But on day one, it was good as not put in the normal place of the other four days, but it is put right after the creation of light, which by its very placement shows that the work of day one was not complete. That there was more to be done in the week. Then, it's God that separates, which is described there, light from darkness. Not an act of providence. And I don't know that, you know, I surely can't describe what happened there, but it seems that God created light and that perhaps even in that, light and darkness were intermingled. Because the light is good that God created, which is simply the creation of light, electricity, energy, all those things necessary for the world to operate right here on our planet. That's good. Then he separates by a divine act, not by ordinary providence, the light from the darkness. Then he names. Now throughout Genesis 1, naming is a declaration of purpose. And at this point, God follows the pattern and gives purpose then, its primary purpose, to light and darkness, again from our perspective. And he then He called the light day, the darkness he called night, and there was evening and morning one day. But you come to the fourth day, it's very different. It's not lights in the expanse, it's luminaries, and that explains why the word has to be used here, because God's distinguishing now from the light that was created, from now those bodies that will govern light in the future of the creation. And at this point now, going to be these heavenly bodies that separate day from night. Now, you look back in Genesis chapter one, God separated the light from darkness. And we know that in some extraordinary providence, God then caused a cycle of light and darkness. But here, it never says in Genesis first day that God separated between day and night. But now the heavenly bodies are given that they might separate between day and night. I don't have time to go into the other arguments here. I believe that rest of scripture teaches it this way. Dr. Collins, who though he says he gives credence to the sequence, seems to argue that we do not have analogical origination of light on day one apart from the heavenly bodies and seems to suggest that both were either created in that first act of creation or on day one. And this means that we should be content with the view that the activity of first and fourth days that involve on a logical origination of the principle of light and light bears respectively. But in fact, again, the structure of the text demands on a logical origination because all the other uses of it are throughout this chapter on a logical origination that the chapter is unique in and to be interpreted within itself, then we must take the other uses of let it be as divine acts of supernatural origination. They age then. Dr. Harris begins with the difficulty of properly understanding the Mosaic Hebrew. I ask, what are the difficult words of the chapter? Are there words or phrases that are unique to Genesis 1? Now, bohu, part of the tohu bohu, formless and void, is only used one of the time. Everything else is used at least a number of times. We don't seem to have lexical or grammatical anomalies in this chapter. It's a chapter that's not given a great... Chapter 2 gives a great deal of difficulty to interpreters, both ancient and modern. But Chapter 1 doesn't seem to give that difficulty, at least until the second half of this century. Usher's dates and the nature of Hebrew genealogies and chronologies are not a part of the discussion or what took place in Genesis chapter 1. The principal argument centers around the meaning of yom, the word day. Although at times, Joan has an idiomatic meaning, the default position is either daylight or a normal 24-hour day. Default, that's your position by definition, unless the context or the grammar, really the two together, would say otherwise. I doubt if man, if it ever means stage or long indefinite periods, and Skinner, who's no friend of In errancy, our six-day creation has a tremendous refutation of the idea that Yom would ever be taken as a long indefinite period of time. The non-literal uses of Yom are always demanded by context and grammar. Genesis 2.4. In the day is really a Hebrew idiom with the preposition in connected to the word, and it means when, as Dr. Harris says, and it's translated that way in the NIV throughout. But it's clearly a grammatical construction that means when, in the day of. We find the word day in the plural. For example, the days of Adam were 930 years. And again, that's In those days, that was a long time. It was a lifespan. And days are used for a period in history or for a certain genealogical factor. But days in plural are not used for indefinite long periods of time. It's used in the prepositional phrase, the day of, like the cold of snow in the time or day of harvest. Again, it's a specific thing. It's not indefinite long periods of time. Hosea 6.2, they use to prove that Yom is unlimited. He will revive us after two days. He will raise us up on the third day. Now again, days in the plural there is an indefinite period of time, but it's not a long period of time. Otherwise, the promise loses its significance. This is hope for God's people. Yes, you're going to be chastened. You're going to go into exile, but relatively speaking, it's brief because after the third day, I will revive you. What about Psalm 94 and 2 Peter 3.8? In both of these texts, day is to be taken literally. Otherwise, there would be no comparison. You see that? If a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day, if day doesn't mean 24 hours, then the comparison is totally lost in those passages of Scripture. And so there really is no lexical evidence For day being anything but a, even in its other uses, a relatively speaking brief period of time, but known by itself almost invariably refers to a literal day. And when the ordinal number is put with it, the only possible exception to that throughout scripture is Hosea. where there is revival on the third day, but of course the fulfillment of that is the specific day of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And then the argument again that was brought by a couple of our speakers, but it's been primarily a day-age argument. There was too much to do on 12 hours of the sixth day. Well, first off, the text teaches that God did these things on the sixth day. Second, this preponderance of activity has not been a stumbling block to interpreters throughout the history of the Church. Third, we are unable to judge the capacity of Adam to grasp God's revelation or to discern the nature of the animals that he named. And fourth, we don't have to do anything with the word all or every. Again, as Dr. Collins has shown us, the word Eretz there means the immediate land. And the animals that are brought to Adam are not all the animals even that are listed in the general taxonomy of Genesis chapter 1. So we don't know how many animals that Adam named in the immediate environment of the garden, or even in the garden. The description itself doesn't have fish. It doesn't have insects. It doesn't seem to have all the wild beasts and such as that. There really is no problem here outside, I think in our minds, if we say that there's too much there to be done. show you the evidence for sequential narrative, particularly the Vav consecutive. Note it. It's used 55 times in 31 verses in Genesis chapter 1. I'm asked for corroborative evidence of any chapters like 1 and 2 with these grammatical marks are not to be taken as sequential narrative. The ordinal number, contrary to what Dr. Ross says, is clearly distinguished from the cardinal number. It always means order. The absence of a definite article is well explained by Kylan Dalich and Casuto. It's not that much of a grammatical anomaly. clearly teaching the order of the days, and when the order number is used with Yom, it, except in one instance, is a literal day. At that point, Dr. Collins says, but we don't have a statistical comparison because this passage is unique to itself. So even if, in all the other scriptures, it's used this way, We cannot make a judgment about it here. So I just ask, what does that do to scripture as the interpreter of scripture? And to what he says himself, that the only way we can know how readers read the Bible is from the context of the Bible itself. Statistically, a word study with every other use saying exactly this, then why does it not say this? And maybe I've misunderstood him. I gather I have. And he'll explain that to us then. tomorrow morning. Evening and morning, again, are misunderstood by the non-literalist. It's a unique idiom. It's not morning and evening. The examples that are given in the various papers either talk about evening by itself, or morning and evening, or night. This is a unique idiom used three of the times by Moses, and what it means is night time. And there's nothing in the idiom that suggests that Moses at this point was intending to talk about God's rest. God rested on the seventh day. And the text is quite clear. We are imposing an analogy into an idiom that simply gives us hinge. between days 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, etc. And then the cross-references. I want to just direct your attention to one cross-reference with respect to, because I really do want interaction on this, I'm not coming at you with this dogmatically, but in Job 38, 19 and 20, God's rhetorical questions in order to stump Job. Things that Job cannot answer. Where is the way to the dwelling of light and darkness? Where is its place? You have a chiasm there. That you may take it to its territory, that you may discern the paths to its home. I am suggesting to you that the question is not talking about sunlight, were talking about sunlight, Job could to some degree answer that question. I asked, It appears to me that God has actually spoken with respect to the existence of light apart from the sun. In a series of rhetorical questions, I quote the verse. Notice that God is the one speaking. He asked Job a question which is designed to expose God's greatness and Job's creatureliness. In verse 19, he uses a chiasm to emphasize the parallel of light and darkness. In this contrast, God is referring to the originally created darkness which is not simply the absence of light, and the primordial light, which God separated from the darkness. He's not referring to sunlight since Job could answer that light dwells in the sun. This interpretation is confirmed by a wide range of commentators from Matthew Henry to the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Dr. Smith mentioned last night Taylor Lewis. I assume this is the same man that wrote in the Lane Commentary. He was a day-ager, evidently, but listen to what he says. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows. Both light and darkness have a first starting point or a final outlet which is unapproachable to man and unattainable to his researchers. As in Genesis 1, the light is here regarded as a self-subsistent, natural force, independent of the heavenly luminaries by which it is transmitted. Herein, modern investigation agrees with the direct observations of antiquity. Kylan Dalich and the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary take the same interpretation of Job 38. It seems to me then we have a clear voice from God that light existed apart from darkness. Our other papers will talk about the other cross-references. I'll leave that to that and I apologize for doing what my wife told me not to do and that was to abuse the privilege of the chair. But I was gracious to Jack and to Morton, so you'll be gracious to me. Let us pray. Father in heaven, we do thank you that we may have this discussion. Grant us continued humility and grace in our conversations and our presentations. Help us to learn together. In Christ's name, amen.