Page 22 - ADAM IN GENESIS

everything in existence. I have argued the case already for a narrower view of the land is
in view rather than the global earth. Now that life is mentioned in the account we can
address the other topic. Is all plant life brought about on Creation Day 3 and should we
take it that all plant life is mentioned or categorized in the account? Only two types of
vegetation are mentioned, the low lying plants and the trees. If we hold to a global extent
here, we must note that none of the aquatic plants are mentioned. Also, since trees are
further defined as fruit trees, it leaves out tall non-fruit trees such as redwoods, sequoias,
pine trees, etc It becomes difficult to say when God made plants like the aquatic
bladderworts and the buttercup when reading this passage. I believe a better interpretation
is one that is limited in scope to either a specific area of land (perhaps Eden or the
broader Mesopotamia) or one that sees the unmentioned kinds of vegetation as
unimportant in the theme of the Creation account. In other words, aquatic plants play an
insignificant role in setting the stage for Gods ultimate creation, mankind. Such
organisms would have seemed irrelevant to an original audience or they would have no
idea what they were because they were outside of their experience.
As the third Creation Day comes to a close in verse 13, we see that God has now
effectively formed the formless earth from verse 2 and is now about to fill the void earth
with soulish life.
Creation Day 4:
If Creation Day 3 is a favorite for global-extent Young Earth Creationists because the
English versions seem to suggest land plants were created before fish, which is contrary
to the geologic record, then Day 4 is an often used argument for Old Earthers. After all,
how can you have three 24-hour days before God creates the sun? To me it seems like
both of these views are incorrect because they invoke an over-literalistic reading. I find
the Analogical-Day interpretation better fits the biblical and scientific data. That is, since
these are God's Workdays, He uses terminology we can understand and would later use to
define our workweek (Ex. 20). No human was yet around to gauge the lengths Days 1-3
by the same time standards we use today. Some YECs claim that the suns creation and
use in determining days (verse 14) proves a 24-hour duration. OECs believe the suns
absence in Days 1-3 proves at least that the first three Days are longer than 24 hours. Lets
see what the text says.
Verse 14 begins with the typical Creation Day-opening wayyomer (And [God] said). The
jussive form of hayah, as we have seen before, does not imply the origination of the
lights. Other evidence from the text that they existed before Creation Day 4 is the use of
asa (to make) in verse 16 and the verb nathan (to place) in verse 17. We have studied asa
before and nowhere in Scripture is nathan used to depict the beginning of somethings
existence. Consider its use in Genesis 9:13 were God sets (nathan) His rainbow in the
clouds as a covenant between Him and the earth that He would never again send a Flood
to wipe out humanity. We know the physical and optical properties of a rainbow and we
know they must have existed before the Flood (all that is needed is light [Gen. 1:3] and
water droplets in the atmosphere [Gen. 1:6-7; 2:6]). Therefore the rainbow was not a
brand new creation in Noah's day.
Unfortunately the misleading translation of meor as lights appears in virtually all English
versions and does not help in the interpretation. A meor is actually the light-bearer (as in
Young's Literal Translation: luminaries). If the light from the sun is the or, then the sun