Dr. Vance Havner (1901-1986) writes, “Years ago, I was with Dr. Paul Rees at his conference at Medicine Lake. I remember a wonderful illustration that he told of a bishop in India who was approached by a missionary. She said, ‘Bishop, I have sought a deeper experience with God all these years and I don’t have it. I have read books. I have read what to do and all the rules, but I am nowhere yet. Does God have favorites?’ The old bishop said, ‘No, my dear, God does not have favorites. But He has intimates.’”
This is the second part of this series of articles, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day. The fourth and final article answers objections to this normal reading of the text. See my post under the same title, Part I published 6/4/14.
5 Genesis 1 pattern: the first day is called “one day” (“day one”); the others say “first day,” “second day,” and day two through five also lack a definite article; then days six and seven have an article before the numbers. Consequently chapter 1 reads like this: day one, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day.
In Chapter 10, J. Alec Motyer treats us to a solid exegesis of Isaiah 53. I always try to read Motyer on any text of Scripture which he writes. He is an excellent exegete.
Here Motyer avoids the clutter of quotations from other commentators, and stays directly with his exegesis of the text. It’s smooth sailing until we come to page 252:
Ed.’s note: The author of this blog post took exception to the post of a few weeks ago by Pastor Ronnie Rogers titled “A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course: Unless That Day Challenges Evolution!”
SBCToday asked Nina Dunton to write a response, which is below. And below that is a response from Pastor Rogers to this post. Pastor Rogers’ 2nd of this multi-part series will be posted on Wednesday.
Nina Street Dunton is a lay member of North Glencoe Baptist Church in Glencoe, Alabama. She has studied Christian apologetics for 18 years and holds a certificate in CA from Biola University, a bachelor’s degree in visual arts from Auburn University, and is a member of the board of directors of the Christian ministry Reasons To Believe.
The first time I became aware that there was confusion about the day-age view was at a speaker’s workshop in Georgia a few years ago. I was in conversation with a young Institute for Creation Research apologist who, after finding out I held this view, said, “So you believe in evolution?”
I scrunched up my nose and said, “No,” rather emphatically. In hindsight, I wish I had followed up on his reasoning that someone who held an old-earth view must necessarily believe in evolution—for they are two very different ideas.