Answers in Genesis' thoughts on the recent Ken Ham-Jeff Zweerink debate

I appreciated this article, although I had not heard the interview.

Much of the rebuttal is good and sound, other aspects of the rebuttal are questionable. For example, the measurement of the days of Genesis before the sun and moon were created need not be defined by a definition of day developed after the sun and moon were created. Webster’s definition of day need not apply to the first three days of creation.although the third day could not be very long or the vegetation would die. Then again, perhaps not in a pre-curse world.

Also the fact that Augustine did not understand the word “day” as literal because he believed in instant creation is irrelevant. What does Augustine have when interpreting Genesis that we don’t have? Any ancient Jewish rabbi might have more insight (Hebrew language and thought are the contexts of interpreting the OT) — but, then again, probably not. The refutation that Augustine did not believe in longer days is moot— the point is, a day in Augustine’s mind is something other than 24 hours. But who cares what Augustine thought about this?

There is a lot more to be done, I believe, in interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. Ham, in my opinion, is closer to the right track, but the other guy apparently made at least a few points to ponder. To me, it seems like we are missing something, but if I knew what we were missing in our understanding, I would share it. But I haven’t because I don’t have it.