{"id":18550,"date":"2020-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-08-16T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/genesis-004-how-long-is-a-day\/"},"modified":"2020-08-16T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2020-08-16T05:00:00","slug":"genesis-004-how-long-is-a-day","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/genesis-004-how-long-is-a-day\/","title":{"rendered":"Genesis 004 – How Long is a Day?"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[12],"series_event":[511],"sermon_service_type":[472],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18550","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-genesis","series_event-genesis","sermon_service_type-main-service","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Genesis 004 - How Long is a Day?","sermon_date":"20200816","sermon_month":"8","sermon_year":"2020","sermon_notes":8359,"sermon_slides":8358,"sermon_mp3":8361,"sermon_id":"81620130277679","series_or_event":511,"service_type":[472],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":12,"chapter_and_verse":"1:3-13","sermon_transcript":"Genesis #4\nHow Long is a Day?\nGenesis 1:3-13\nAugust 16, 2020\nDr. Andy Woods\n\nGood morning, everybody. Let's take our Bibles, if we could, and open them to the Book of Genesis, chapter 1. The title of our message this morning is, \u201cHow Long is a Day?\u201d\n\nAs you know, we've started moving through the Book of Genesis, the first couple of lessons laying the foundation. Genesis chapters 1-11 is about the human<\/em> race and its beginning. Chapters 12-50 is about the Hebrew<\/em> race.\n\nWe\u2019re just moving into section 1 where we learn about four events. The first of which is Creation itself, chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1 is about the creation of the cosmos. Chapter 2 is about creation of the anthropos. Cosmos\u2014everything; anthropos\u2014man. Chapter 1 is the whole Creation week. Chapter 2 is not focusing on six days but the sixth<\/em> day. So both chapters give you a slightly different perspective on beginnings.\n\nWe have seen Genesis 1:1, where God, on Day One, brought the heavens and the earth into existence through His spoken Word, something out of nothing. And everything leapt into existence. But verse 2 is a description of what it was like in its unfilled and unformed state. It's like a canvas in the hands of Michelangelo, and you\u2019re just excited to see what is going to be produced on that empty campus. It's like a giant lump of clay on a potter's wheel in the hands of a talented potter, and you have great expectation and anticipation to see what's going to be shaped and molded.\n\nSo verse 2 is really not a description of something that went wrong\u2014as many people teach it\u2014it\u2019s just a description of that original Creation in its state of emptiness: unshaped, unformed, and unfilled. Then God, as we start to move through these Creation days, is shaping and molding. He is shaping and populating what He brought into existence\u2014using that analogy of a giant lump of clay\u2014in Genesis 1:1.\n\nNow we move into the first day of Creation. Notice what it says in Genesis 1:3-5, where God brings into existence light. It says, \u201cThen God said, \u2018Let there be light\u2019; and there was light<\/em>.\u201d This, of course, is the way it works with God; He doesn't have to wait around for some long process to occur.\n\nIn fact, why didn't God just do it instantaneously and forget the six days entirely? We have an answer to that later; He was setting up a pattern for us in terms of our workweek. People say, \u201cSix days? You don't believe it could happen that fast, do you?\u201d My answer is, \u201cWhy did it take so long<\/em>?\u201d God stretched it out in six days as a pattern for us.\n\nSo light comes into existence. This is a Latin word conceptualizing our understanding of Creation ex nihilo, \u201csomething out of nothing.\u201d You say, \u201cWait a minute, now. Hold the phone! The sun, the moon, and the stars don't come into existence until Day Four. So, how in the world can you have light without the sun?\u201d As if \u201cpoor little old God\u201d is dependent upon the sun. God doesn't need the sun because He Himself is clothed in unapproachable light<\/em>. In fact, I believe God deliberately did it this way. We\u2019ll speak more about it if and when we get to Day Four. But He intentionally allowed light to come into existence before the sun because He knew throughout the corridors of time that man would worship what? The sun.\n\nMan has a tendency to worship the created thing rather than the Creator Himself. And there's a record of it\u2014sun worshipers. They're not just in Southern California; they're all over the Bible. In Deuteronomy 4:19 you'll see people worshiping the sun. When they do that, God simply says, \u201cGo back to the record book. You\u2019re worshiping the wrong thing. You\u2019re worshiping the created thing rather than Me. Don't worship the sun because of its capacity to emit light. Worship Me; I'm the source of light.\u201d In fact, we got along quite well with light for Days One, Two, and Three before the sun ever came into existence.\n\nMove on to verse and 4 which says, \u201cGod saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness<\/em>.\u201d So now we have light and darkness being separated. Notice here that the darkness is not bad\u2014any more than the light is bad. It\u2019s just a separation between the two.\n\nThen you get to verse 5, also describing the first day, and it says, \u201cGod called the light \u2018day,\u2019 and the darkness He called \u2018night.\u2019 And there was evening and there was morning, one day<\/em>.\u201d This is how you know we\u2019re moving through these days. It'll say, \u201cand God said\u2026\u201d There's usually a statement about it being \u201cgood.\u201d It'll use the word \u201cday,\u201d which is the Hebrew word YOM. It'll use the expression \u201cevening and morning,\u201d and then it'll say, \u201cThat was the first day.\u201d And you'll find those elements through all six days of the Creation week.\n\nSo, Day One has taken place; light, now, has come into existence. This, of course, raises a very interesting question: How long are the days? So I\u2019ve titled this, \u201cHow Long is a Day?\u201d This is a chart I'm using to surface key issues as we move through Genesis 1. A lot of issues here! We talked about the importance of Genesis 1:1 last time as well as the alleged \u201cgap theory.\u201d Now, the third major issue that you run into in Genesis chapter 1 is the length of the days.\n\nUnfortunately, evangelicals\u2014or Bible believers\u2014have a difficult time agreeing on this. There are at least four views on this. Now, why has it become so confusing and so cluttered? There's a reason for it; I'll share that with you in just a minute.\n\nBut let's look at these different views. Some would say that these are nothing more than revelatory<\/em> days. They call this \u201cdays of revelation\u201d and say, \u201cGod really didn't create in six days. What He did is He showed Moses how<\/em> He did it, and the movie<\/em> lasted six days. God communicating to Moses lasted six 24-hour days, but there's nothing in the Bible that says God actually created on six days.\u201d\n\nNow, where do they get this? They get this from the verb ASAH, which is used in Exodus 20:11 which says, \u201c\u2026in the day that the Lord God made<\/em> [ASAH] earth and heaven<\/em>.\u201d They say, \u201cAsah means \u2018to reveal\u2019; it means \u2018to show.\u2019 \u201d And they'll usually retreat to Genesis 24:12 where the verb ASAH is used. It says there, \u201c \u2018Lord, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today, and show<\/em> [in other words, \u201creveal\u201d; that\u2019s ASAH] kindness to my master Abraham<\/em>.\u2019 \u201d\n\nSo, the idea is, \u201cGod didn't create in six days. He showed Moses a movie.\u201d Pardon that analogy, but it's the best thing I can think of\u2014a vision. And the vision lasted six days: Days of Revelation view. The problem with that, of course, is the verb ASAH can<\/em> mean \u201cto show\u201d in Genesis 24:12, but typically words have many different meanings.\n\nI like to use the word \u201capple\u201d as an example. How many meanings can you generate from the word apple? It could be a piece of fruit. It could be a computer. It could be New York City\u2014the \u201cBig Apple.\u201d It could be the pupil of one's eye\u2014the apple of one's eye. How would I ever know what meeting to supply in a passage? What are my three rules for Bible study? Context, context, context. Does the context support that meaning?\n\nYou always look at context. Any more than I would read my wife's grocery shopping list which says \u201capples\u201d and think to myself, \u201cGreat! Free trip to New York City!\u201d No! It doesn't mean that all! There's a context: it's a shopping list. So, fruit is what she's talking about. That's how you study anything<\/em> that's written in linguistic form, and that's how you study this verb ASAH. Yes, it can mean \u201cshow\u201d somewhere else, but that's not what it means here.\n\nYou\u2019ll notice ASAH is used in Genesis 1:26, \u201c \u2018Let Us make man in Our image<\/em>\u2026\u201d And then Genesis 1:27 says, \u201cGod created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him<\/em>\u2026\u201d Now, that's the Hebrew verb BARA, which means \u201cto create.\u201d So you\u2019ll notice that ASAH and BARA are used in tandem; they are used in harmony with each other. You'll see that in Genesis 2:4, ASAH and BARA together. You'll see that in Isaiah 43:7, ASAH and BARA together.\n\nSo, can ASAH mean \u201cto reveal\u201d? Yes, somewhere else. But here, because it's used in harmony with the word \u201ccreate,\u201d it means \u201cto create.\u201d In fact, Exodus 20:11 says, \u201cThis is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created<\/em> [BARA] in the day that the Lord God made<\/em> [ASAH] earth and heaven<\/em>.\u201d\n\nYou see how it keeps getting used with BARA, which means \u201cto create\u201d? So, when you look in any Hebrew dictionary, you'll see that ASAH doesn't always mean \u201cto reveal\u201d; it doesn't always mean \u201cto show\u201d; it can easily mean \u201cto create.\u201d See, the problem is that what people do is develop meanings of words from totally outside the context and read that into their present context to get the Bible to say what they want it to say rather than what it says. There is a fancy name for that error; it's called illegitimate totality transfer. No extra charge for that.\n\nBut the fact of the matter is, words change meanings all the time. Look at this example. \u201cI ran<\/u> out of ingredients for the salad, so I decided to make a quick run<\/u> to the store. While at the store, I left the engine running<\/u> while I made the purchase, thinking that I would be right out again. However, while I was in the store, I ran<\/u> into my good friend Edward who was running<\/u> for county supervisor. This resulted in my having to endure a somewhat long-winded run<\/u>down on how his campaign was running.<\/u> Finally, fearing that my car would run<\/u> out of gas, I ran<\/u> with great haste to the parking lot and returned home with the car surely running<\/u> on fumes.\u201d Look at how the word \u201crun\u201d changes over and over again.\n\nAnd if a woman was saying this, she could complain that she has a run<\/u> in her stockings. And if she has a little bit of a stomach poison\u2014back poison\u2014she's got a case of the runs.<\/u> Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up in church. But the fact of the matter is, the word \u201crun\u201d changes even in a paragraph\u2014 radically. So, you don't figure out what a word means in some other context. What does it mean here? So, here ASAH doesn't mean \u201cto reveal\u201d or \u201cto show\u201d; it means \u201cto create.\u201d\n\nThe second view is, \u201cOkay, these are solar days\u201424 hour days\u2026\u201d (And I'll give you the evidence in a minute as to why I think they are solar days.) \u201c\u2026but the days don't run in consecutive order.\u201d In other words, what they're saying is, \u201cThere could be vast gaps of time between each day.\u201d\n\nNow, why are people doing this with the Bible? Why are they always trying to find deep time<\/em> somewhere? The issue is it relates to the holy Trinity. And when I say, \u201choly Trinity,\u201d I'm not talking about the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is the holy Trinity we accept by faith; I'm talking about the holy Trinity of evolution, the dominant thought pattern of our time period. Evolution is, \u201cfrom the goo, to you, by way of the zoo\u2014over billions of years.\u201d And in order for evolution to work, you\u2019ve got to have deep time. I'm talking millions of years\u2014billions of years. If you want to explain Creation without the Creator you\u2019ve got to have deep time.\n\nSo people are hoodwinked by that philosophy. And I know a little bit about that because I went through the public school system where they taught me that evolution is a scientific fact; it can't be questioned. And then I got saved! Now, my mind didn't get renewed in 24 hours. I still had a lot of baggage that I was bringing with me into Christianity.\n\nI thought to myself as a young Christian, \u201cWell, the science teacher told me that evolution is a fact. Now I'm a Christian, and I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.\u201d So I was trying to mix<\/em> the two together. And I tried to do that for a couple of years! Until I finally got under some good teaching that says, \u201cEvolution is a philosophy<\/em>\u2014not a scientific fact.\u201d\n\nIn fact, it takes more faith to believe evolution than it does, \u201cIn the beginning God created<\/em>...\u201d I like the title of one of Norman Geisler's books, \u201cI Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist<\/em>.\u201d Evolution has a holy trinity which you must accept by faith; the holy trinity is time, randomness, and matter. \u201cGiven those three things, anything could happen,\u201d they say.\n\nYou say to an evolutionist, \u201cThis idea that you have that everything came about accidentally is sort of ridiculous.\u201d It would be like taking cards, numbering them on one side\u2014each card\u2014one through 52\u2014putting those cards in a paper bag, and randomly throwing them on the floor. What are the chances of those cards landing number side up, in a straight row, sequentially numbered 1 to 52? I would say the probabilities there are slim and none\u2014and \u201cSlim\u201d just left town. And the evolutionist will come back and say, \u201cYes, but if you did that for a billion years<\/em>, eventually it will come out that way correctly.\u201d\n\nSo, you have to have time for evolution to work. That's why there is this obsession amongst evolutionists for everything being so old, because it's part of their faith assumptions. And that's why people influenced by evolution are always trying to find deep time somewhere in the Bible. The problem is the more you look at the Bible, the more it doesn't allow that. It gives you the impression that things came into existence\u2014not millions of years ago\u2014not billions of years ago\u2014not trillions of years ago, but\u2014thousands of years ago.\n\nSo, the whole young earth mindset is anathema to evolution. In fact, if you teach anything in academia related to the young earth, you lose your job, you lose your tenure, you\u2019re de-published, your grants to do research are taken away. It's like the kiss of death! Watch the Ben Stein movie sometime where he documents this. The movie is called Expelled: no intelligence allowed<\/em>. In the form of a documentary, Ben Stein documents, historically, professors who dared to post something or insinuate that, \u201cMaybe things are young.\u201d How they are demonized and ostracized.\n\nSo, people are obsessed with finding deep time in the Bible. One of the things that they do, in addition to the revelatory days, is they say, \u201cOkay, maybe these are 24 hour days, but we don't know how much time exists between each day. I mean, there could be a million years between Day One and Day Two,\u201d they say, \u201cor between Day Three and Day Four.\u201d This is called the \u201cSolar Non-Consecutive Days\u201d view.\n\nThe problem is God did it this way as a pattern for the workweek for the Jewish people. In Exodus 20:8-11 Moses\u2014same author\u2014says, \u201cRemember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy<\/em>.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo, Israel, I could've done this in a nanosecond, but I deliberately stretched it out into six days and a rest on the Day of the Sabbath.\u201d \u201cNot, God says, \u201cbecause I was tired.\u201d \u201cPoor God got tired.\u201d No. As a pattern for the Jewish week. And He says, \u201cIn the same way you guys do the same thing. You work six days and rest on the Sabbath.\u201d\n\nNow look at your work week. Do you get a billion years off between Monday and Tuesday? Obviously not! This would violate the whole pattern of what is being spoken of here. You'll find the same pattern in Exodus 31:15-17. We don't have time to read all that.\n\nSo, the Revelatory Days view is not right. The Solar Non-consecutive Days view is not right. Now, the dominant view that's out there today\u2014you'll run into it\u2014is known as the Day Age Theory. Where they say, \u201cEach of the Creation days is an age of time, and we can find our deep time there.\u201d The dominant argument is the word \u201cday\u201d in the Bible can mean<\/em> an age. And you know what? They\u2019re right about that.\n\nThe Hebrew word YOM can mean \u201can age\u201d elsewhere. Look at the New Testament, 2 Peter 3:8. Peter is speaking of a day and says, \u201cBut do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day<\/em>.\u201d So there's an example where the word \u201cday\u201d can be elastic; it doesn't have to refer to a 24 hour period.\n\nAnd they like to quote Genesis 2:4, which is the same context that we\u2019re dealing with here, where it says, \u201cThis is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day<\/u> that the Lord God made earth and heaven<\/em>.\u201d They\u2019ll say, Ah ha! You see, \u2018day\u2019 there refers to the whole week; it could be an age! It\u2019s not just referring to a 24-hour cycle.\u201d\n\nWhat, then, would be the response to that? The response to that is, \u201cOf course the word \u2018day\u2019 can mean an age\u2026in another context.\u201d But we don't really care\u2014do we?\u2014what it means in another context. We care what it means where? In our context.\n\nLook at how the word \u201cday\u201d can shift meanings radically in one sentence. Ken Ham, in his book, Answers in Genesis<\/em>, writes this: \u201cBack in my father's day<\/u>, it took ten days<\/u> to drive across the Australian outback during the day<\/u>.\u201d Now, there what you'll discover in one sentence is the word \u201cday\u201d means three different things depending on how it's used. \u201cIn my Father's Day\u201d is an age. Then he says, \u201cten days\u201d; those are literal 24 hour days. Then he talks about driving across the Australian outback.\n\nThat's why I gave you the name Ken Ham; Australia is where he's from. Because you'll read that and say, \u201cWhen was the last time you drove across the Australian outback?\u201d The closest I've come is going to the Outback Steakhouse.\n\n\u201c\u2026to drive across the Australian outback during the day.\u201d \u201cDay\u201d in that last use is referring to 12 hours\u2014not 24 hours. So, the truth of the matter is the word \u201cday\u201d can mean \u201can age\u201d elsewhere. But you see, beloved, we have a specific context: first day, second day, third day. Very significant! A number is attached. And to each day it'll say what? Evening and morning.It doesn\u2019t say that in 2 Peter 3:8. It doesn\u2019t say that in Genesis 2:4. But is sure says it in Genesis 1. More on that in just a minute.\n\nIf the writer of the Book of Genesis\u2014who we believe is Moses\u2014wanted to say each day is an age, he could have easily done that through the use of the word OLAM, which he does not do here. OLAM can mean forever. Psalm 90:2, God exists from everlasting to everlasting, OLAM repeated twice. But OLAM can also mean \u201can age,\u201d a long age outside of a 24 hour timeframe. For example, Exodus 21:2 says, \u201cIf you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing<\/em>.\u201d\n\nVerse 5, \u201cBut if the servant plainly says, \u2018I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,\u2019 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear <\/em>[wow!] with an awl <\/em>[I don\u2019t even know what that is; to me it looks like it hurts. You guys know what it is\u2014that\u2019s more important]; and he shall serve him forever<\/em>. For how long? Forever\u2014that\u2019s OLAM.\n\nNow, did the guy never die? No. It's talking about OLAM as an age of time\u2014outside of 24 hours. This is Moses writing this. See, if Moses wanted to say \u201can age\u201d in Genesis 1, he could've just used the word OLAM, just like he does in Exodus 21. Moses didn't do that. He said day (which is YOM) with a number, and then he attached the expression \u201cevening and morning.\u201d\n\nIf Moses wanted to say an \u201cage\u201d or a \u201clong day,\u201d why didn't he just attach the adjective \u201clong\u201d to the word day? There is an adjective for \u201clong\u201d in Hebrew. Why didn\u2019t he just attach that to the word YOM if he was trying to say that each day is an age? Moses didn't do that. He gives you YOM, number, evening and morning.\n\nThis is from one of my favorite commentators on Genesis, Jonathan Sarfati. He has this chart in one of his books where he says, \u201cHere were all the Hebrew expressions available to Moses if he wanted to say, \u201can age.\u201d Look at all of the words at his linguistic fingertips that he could have used. Moses doesn't use any<\/em> of those words! He says \u201cday\u201d with a number and with the expression \u201cevening and morning.\u201d\n\nTherefore, I do not believe that the intent of Genesis chapter 1 is to communicate that each day is an age. Yet it's very popular with people who are very influenced by evolutionary thought because they\u2019re always looking for deep time somewhere.\n\nI\u2019ve given you all the wrong views. What's the right view? The right view is these are solar consecutive days. These are 24 hour days, and Tuesday follows Monday immediately. It doesn\u2019t overlap it, but it follows it. And Wednesday will follow Tuesday. And Thursday will follow Wednesday, etc.\n\nIn other words, these are days just like we experience them today. In fact, God stretched out the process this long where He could have spoken it into existence as a pattern for Israel\u2014and ultimately the human race\u2014concerning the workweek. How do we know that? Because as I mentioned before, there's a number<\/em> attached to each day in Genesis 1.\n\nIt doesn't just say \u201cday.\u201d It'll say, \u201cfirst day\u2026second day\u2026third day.\u201d The fancy name for this is a numerical ordinal modifier. No extra charge for that! And when you see YOM with a number anywhere else in the Old Testament, it always refers to a 24 hour day! No discussion about it.\n\nFor example, Joshua 6:3. Remember? They had to march around the walls of Jericho for the walls to fall. Remember how long they were to march around the walls? Joshua 6:3, six days. Nobody thinks they were out there for 6 billion years.\n\nEsther 4:16 talks about how she is to fast for three days. Now, if the fast went 3 million years she would've starved to death. YOM always means\u2014with a number\u2014a day somewhere else in the Bible.\n\nNow, Moses didn't just use a number; he used, also, the expression \u201cevening and morning.\u201d I mean, YOM\u2014or day\u2014with a number would be enough. But Moses says, \u201cJust so nobody is confused about it, let's throw in the expression \u2018evening and morning,\u2019 which I would understand as a normal, 24-hour earth rotation.\u201d\n\nSo, Moses doesn't just give one qualifier; he gives two. Therefore, it doesn't matter what \u201cday\u201d means somewhere else in the Bible. What we\u2019re dealing with here is a specific context where he uses a word with a numerical ordinal modifier. And just to avoid all confusion, he throws in the expression \u201cevening and morning\u201d for all six days. And just to avoid the confusion, the same author, Moses, in Exodus 20:8-11 and Exodus 31:15-17 says, \u201cGod intentionally did it this way as a pattern for the Israeli workweek.\u201d So, what we experience in our normal workweek is exactly how God did it in the six days of Creation.\n\nNow, people are very upset about that because if you believe that, you leave out deep time. And if you leave out deep time, you\u2019re denying a member in the holy trinity of evolution. And that's what people are fighting about.\n\nIt's interesting that in Genesis 5:5 we read these words, \u201cSo all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died<\/em>.\u201d Now, think about this for minute. If each day is a million years, and Adam is created, let's say, midway through Day Six, he didn't die at the age of 930, did he? He would've been 1,500,930 years when he died, if each day is an age.\n\nPresumably, he lived through half of Day Six, let's say, and all of Day Seven. So if you make each of those days a million years, then you can't make any sense of the fact that he died at the age of 930. He should have been 1,500,930. But that is not<\/em> what the Bible says; the Bible says, \u201c930 years and he died.\u201d\n\nMy point in bringing up Adam's age is this: you, as a Christian, will pay a price in other areas of Bible interpretation when you don't take God at His Word on the first page. If you will not take God at His Word on page 1\u2014and you're going to go through a bunch of linguistic gymnastics to make God's Word fit your worldview\u2014which may be a wrong worldview\u2014and you sit in judgment on the Bible\u2014not understanding that the Bible is here to sit in judgment on us\u2014<\/em>you don't just escape the problem in Genesis 1.\n\nBecause now, in Genesis 5, I\u2019ve got to come up with another interpretation to justify my misinterpretation of Genesis 1. And suddenly the Bible becomes\u2026\u00a0 It's like a pretzel. It's Chubby Checker hermeneutics: \u201cTwist and Shout.\u201d Chubby Checker sang \u201cThe Twist,\u201d right? The point is that it's terrible hermeneutics. Can we agree on that?\n\nWhy do people do this? Here's a quote from Gleason Archer, a top-notch scholar. Did you know that Gleason Archer knew 21\u2014perhaps more\u2014Semitic languages? He was the kind of guy who was just gifted in languages. I'm very jealous because language and learning languages was always difficult for me, but there are some people who just pick it up like that.\n\nGleason Archer was at genius level. He wrote a book called Survey of Old Testament Introduction.<\/em> When he became engaged to his future wife who was from France, wanted to meet her parents and have a conversation with them, he just pulled out a book and learned French on the plane right over so he could converse with his future mother and father-in-law.\n\nNow, I have a little bit of inside information on Gleason Archer. He had a difficult time finding his way out of airports and simple things, which is what happens to very smart people. They\u2019re really IQ powerful in one area, but common sense was more difficult for him. But Gleason Archer was a linguistic genius. He wrote Survey of Old Testament Introduction<\/em>.\n\nHe says something very revealing here on page 196 to 197 concerning Genesis 1. He says, \u201cFrom a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days.\u201d Amen! I wish he had stopped writing because then he goes on and says, \u201cThis seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that planet earth was created several billion years ago.\u201d As smart as he was, he doesn't know that; he wasn't there to see it. But he believes that's what science teaches.\n\nSo what science teaches is overriding his understanding of a normal reading of Genesis 1. And I like to point this out because it shows you that even the best of the best can get seduced by philosophies from the outside\u2014and use those philosophies to rewrite the Bible. This guy has forgotten<\/em> more about Hebrew than I'll ever know. And yet even he himself acknowledges, \u201cThat's what the Hebrew text says, but I've got one eyeball on the Bible and one eyeball on Carl Sagan.\u201d That's what he's admitting here.\n\nWhat I believe is that this was a six twenty-four-hour day cycle. Just like we experience days today: solar consecutive days. God speaks, and light comes into existence. And that is Day One.\n\nNow we move into Day Two, Genesis 1:6-8, where God is going to speak a second time, and now water and sky come into existence. Notice what He says in Genesis 1:6-8. \u201cThen God said, \u201cLet there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.\u201d 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters that were below the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so<\/em>.\u201d I mean, there's not even a committee here to outvote God.\n\nVerse 8, \u201cGod called the expanse \u201cheaven.\u201d And there was evening and there was morning, a second day<\/em>.\u201d Now, isn\u2019t this interesting? We've got waters below<\/em> the expanse. What would that be? I would think that would be ocean. And then we have this expanse that is called here \u201csky.\u201d So far, so good, because in our world we have oceans and a sky. And then it says something very interesting here: the sky separates the waters below (ocean) from the waters above.\n\nNow, aren't you curious what the \u201cwaters above\u201d are? And this takes us into something that I happen to believe is true. I don't know if I would start a new church over this, but I believe that a ball of water at Creation\u2014and God speaking these things into existence\u2014surrounded the earth at one point in history. This seems to be implied in Genesis 1:6 and 7.\n\nAnd it's interesting in Psalm 148 where each of the entities are praising the Lord in Creation\u2014they\u2019re personified as praising the Lord. All the different entities in Creation are mentioned. The light is praising the Lord; the stars; the luminaries are praising the Lord; the earth is praising the Lord. And it says this in Psalm 148:4, \u00a0\u201cPraise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!<\/em>\u201d\n\nSo, as Psalm 148 looks backward<\/em> at Creation, it seems like it's a reference to Genesis 1:6-7 where there was an actual sphere of water that surrounded the earth, probably looking something like this slide, or perhaps looking something like another slide. Now, once again, this is a model.\n\nIt's not something to go to war over. But when you adopt any model in the Bible, you want to adopt the model that answers the most questions. And by my way of thinking\u2014and I'm not a scientist\u2014the canopy theory model answers a lot of my questions. Such as, \u201cWhy are people living so long before the Flood?\u201d\n\nWe looked at Genesis 5:5 earlier, which says that Adam lived 930 years. Now, the oldest living man prior to the Flood was a man named Methuselah. When we get there, I'll try to show you that his name in Hebrew actually means, \u201cWhen he dies it will come.\u201d That could be a reference to the Flood. It shows you the patience of God because God said, \u201cJudgment will come when Methuselah dies,\u201d and he lived the longest. It shows you how long God waited<\/em> in the days of Noah.\n\nAnd if that's what his name means, everybody probably got nervous every time the guy got a sore throat or something. \u201cKeep him alive as long as we can!\u201d But he<\/em> lived to 969 years. Adam lived 930 years. Now, I can either look at those numbers, get out my whiteout and eraser and say, \u201cThe Bible doesn't mean what it says,\u201d or I can take it for what it means and says. I am of the opinion that Adam lived actually 930 years. Methuselah lived 969 years.\n\nHere are some of the ages of those guys before the Flood. Seth, 912 years. Canaan, 910 years. Mahalaleel was just a young man\u2014he only lived 895 years! Methuselah, 969 years. Lamech, 777 years. To me, the ball of water surrounding the earth would explain their ages for the simple reason that that ball of water could have played some sort of role in reflecting\/refracting\/reducing the sun\u2019s ultraviolet rays which cause the aging process to accelerate.\n\nIn other words, there was something in place that allowed people to live so long before the Flood. It was like a filter. That's why pilots get hazard pay, because they're up and around that intense stuff where it could have an effect on their longevity, their lifespan. So it would explain the long life spans of early man as recorded in the Bible.\n\nIt would also explain the strange looking animals. Aren\u2019t we finding those in the fossil record constantly? Animals that, when you assemble the skeletal remains, don't really have any parallel to animals that we know today. We give them the name, what? Dinosaurs. Why do we keep finding those strange looking creatures? We're finding them because at one time there was a type of\u2026I don't know if you want to call it a \u201cgreenhouse effect,\u201d a \u201cfilter,\u201d that allowed animals to grow differently and larger than what we have today.\n\nIn fact, the Book of Job mentions a couple of them. Job, of course, is the oldest book of the Bible, predating the Book of Genesis by six centuries, written during the times of the patriarchs. Study Job 40:15 and you\u2019ll run into this creature called the Behemoth. What is that?\n\nStudy Job 41:1, and you'll run into this creature called the \u201cLeviathan.\u201d And people say, \u201cWell, that's just a hippopotamus.\u201d Really?\n\nJob 40:17 talks about its tail, \u201cHe hangs his tail like a cedar<\/em>...\u201d Now, I haven\u2019t been to the zoo recently, but I don\u2019t remember a hippopotamus looking like that! I mean, where did those strange animals come from? I'm of the persuasion that Noah\u2014in their hibernation\u2014or maybe in their infancy\u2014took them into the ark and they came out of the ark and grew into full stature in a world that was different than what they had known before. And they died off. And that's perhaps why we see these skeletal remains of animals that really don't have any real correlation to what we know today in terms of the animal kingdom.\n\nBy the way, you\u2019d better come up with an answer fast on this, because the number one reason the youth reject the Bible is because of dinosaurs. Did you know that? I was shocked to learn that. No credible answer has been given for dinosaurs. So, therefore, the secular biologist has the \u201creal\u201d history, and we have the \u201cfake\u201d history. I actually think we have answers<\/em> that make sense!\n\nSo, as you\u2019re ministering to your children and grandchildren, you\u2019d better start thinking about these kinds of things. Because they could slip right through your fingers once they get under the mindset of the secularists\u2014particularly at the University.\n\nThis canopy that surrounded the earth? To me it also explains, \u201cWhere did the floodwaters come from?\u201d I have seen people ridicule the Flood for a long time, and they say, \u201cHow could you believe in a global Flood? Don't you understand that there's not enough moisture in the clouds to flood the earth?\u201d So, they are assuming that how we experience rain today is how they experienced it at the Flood. That's an assumption.\n\nHow do you know God used the clouds? The Bible doesn't say that. Could it not be that God simply released the canopy that surrounded the earth? You say, \u201cDoes the Bible say anything like that?\u201d Look at Genesis 7:11 which says, \u201cIn the six hundredth year of Noah\u2019s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened<\/em>.\u201d\n\nGenesis 8:2, \u201cAlso the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed <\/em>[following the Flood].\u201d So, water came up from the ground in some sense, and it came down from the floodgates of the sky. Could that not be God simply releasing the canopy?\n\nIt's interesting that the civilization prior to the flood didn't even know what rain was. How do I know that? I know that from Genesis 2:5-6, describing the garden of Eden. It says, \u201cNow no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground<\/em>. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground<\/em>.\u201d\n\nSo, you're dealing with a civilization and a generation of people that didn't even know what rain was; they had no concept of it. That's not how God brought moisture; it came up from the ground. Now, you understand that,<\/em> and you understand why Noah was a man of faith.\n\nNoah is mentioned in the Hall of Faith, Hebrews 11:7, because he was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). And Genesis 6:3 says Noah and the Spirit strove with man for 120 years. What was Noah preaching about? He was preaching about\u2014I believe\u2014a global Deluge when he himself didn't even know, conceptually, what rain was. So, he had to completely\u2014100%\u2014trust the promises of God because they probably made no sense to him at all. His faith was totally in the revelation of God and not what his senses were telling him. That's why he's in the Hall of Faith.\n\nCould you imagine the ridicule that Noah went through, talking about this for 120 years? Not to mention this ark that he just put in his driveway. \u201cWhat's that<\/em> doing here? I mean, why would you need something like that<\/em> when it doesn\u2019t even rain?!\u201d The insanity<\/em> of the whole thing, the way he looked, the ridicule that he no doubt experienced from the unsaved world because he was walking by faith and not by sight.\n\nBy the way, that's the same ridicule you<\/em> experience from the natural man. Because the things that you believe in don't make any sense to them! They\u2019re contrary to the physical senses. But you\u2019ve made a decision that you\u2019re going to trust the revelation of God, the Word of God, over what your five senses tell you. And that makes you seem foolish<\/em>, the Bible says, in the eyes of the natural man. And yet the natural man\u2014who doesn't have the Spirit\u20141 Corinthian 2\u2014is in no position to judge the spiritual man.\n\nSo Noah is walking by faith and building this giant whatever it is in his driveway. Probably speaking of a coming Deluge, and the world itself didn't even know what rain was! And everybody had a great big laugh about it\u2026until the canopy was released. Now it's not so funny anymore because we\u2019ve got 40 days and 40 nights of intense rain. Not through the clouds, but I would think through the gradual releasing of the canopy.\n\nAnd the guy who endured the abuse because he believed God? All of a sudden, he looks like the smartest guy in the world. You see, the Bible uses these as examples of how fast<\/em> our faith will be vindicated one day\u2014even though it looks foolish in the eyes of the natural man.\n\nSo, the canopy theory would explain the long life spans of man. It would explain these strange beasts of which we have no parallel today. It would also explain where the floodwaters come from. It also explains something else. Why is it that after the Flood everybody's lifespan starts getting reduced? Have you ever asked yourself that?\n\nBecause there's a genealogy in Genesis 5 giving the ages of the pre-flood patriarchs. There's another genealogy in Genesis 11 giving the ages of the post-flood patriarchs. And what you'll see is their lifespans start getting cut back. They\u2019re not living into their 900s anymore. The first record we have is Shem; he's only living 600 years. And then Arphaxad, 400 years. Salah, 400 years, roughly. Eber, roughly 400 years. Peleg? Now we\u2019re down to 200 years. Serug, 200. Nahor, 148! And then, finally, Abram shows up. He only lives 115.\n\nThere's another chart showing you the decline of their ages. Living into their 900s pre-flood. Their ages start getting cut back dramatically post-Flood. Why is that? The canopy is gone. The barrier is gone. The protective greenhouse covering is gone. And now Psalm 90 says that if you reach 70 to 80, consider yourself fortunate.\n\nSo, I don't know, would I start a new church over this? I don't think I would. It's just a model, and any model that you adopt, you try to figure out which model answers the most questions. To me, a lot of questions are answered through the canopy theory idea.\n\nThen we come to Day Three, Genesis 1:9-13. We won't get any further than Day Three. Some of you may feel like this has been 3 billion years. Genesis 1:9-13 is where now God is bringing into existence land and vegetation. Day One: light. Day Two: earth and sky. Day Three: land and vegetation.\n\nLook at what it says in verse 9, \u201cThen God said, \u2018Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear\u2019; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land \u2018earth,\u2019 and the gathering of the waters He called \u2018seas\u2019; and God saw that it was good<\/em>.\u201d\n\nSo, \u201cwaters\u201d are the seas. Dry land is coming up from amongst the ocean; we call it the earth or the ERETS. And nothing is wrong, nothing is broken, nothing is being renovated. God keeps saying that it was good. TOV over and over again, \u201cgood\u2026good.\u201d\n\nThen you get down to verses 11 and 12, and you start seeing plants, vegetation, fruit trees, and seed. \u201cThen God said, \u2018Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit <\/em>[look at this] according to their kind <\/em>[you should underline that] with seed in them\u2019; and it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed <\/em>[there it is again\u2026look at that] according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, <\/em>[this is a third time here!] according to their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day<\/em>.\u201d\n\nSo, now we have plants, vegetation, fruit trees, and seed appearing from the earth that has come out of the waters. And I'll be making the case, when we get to Genesis 1:29-30, that early man was herbivorous\u2014not carnivorous. He was a vegetarian; not a meat eater. Why would you say that? Because it says it in the Bible. And because God created a world with no death in it, and to have a steak lunch, I\u2019ve got to kill something. So, it would make sense that you'd have herbivorous man\u2014not carnivorous man\u2014in the original design of God.\n\nNow, this is Texas, and now I'm stepping on people's toes because we\u2019ve got a steakhouse on every corner. \u201cThem is fightin\u2019 words,\u201d right? \u201cIn fact, I had my lunch plans all set up. I\u2019m going to go get a steak. Are you telling me I can't get a steak?\u201d No. You're going to get your steak, but you're going to get it in Genesis 9, not Genesis 1. More on that later.\n\nYou'll notice that it says, \u201cafter their kind.\u201d This is very, very important because the evolutionists are saying that all species are related. After all, that's how an ape\u2014another species\u2014became a man who is so smart (there on the far right) that he's looking at a cell phone with his briefcase. And the guy on the left of the slide? That's your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather.\n\nEvolution basically is teaching that the species are not distinct, but they\u2019re related. See, this is one of the things I was struggling with as a new Christian because I thought all life\u2014they call it the continuity or the chain of being\u2014is related. But the Bible keeps saying, \u201cThings produced after their kind.\u201d Mr. and Mrs. Giraffe create a what? A baby giraffe! They don't create a human being.\n\nAnd that's true with anything in nature. Things only produce after their own kind. You have no<\/em> evidence<\/em> of one species becoming another. In fact, they're still looking for that evidence; they call it the \u201cmissing link.\u201d Which is a great name for it because it\u2019s still missing. That's what they're always looking for.\n\nNow, when I was going through elementary school, they had all these pictures of the \u201cmissing link.\u201d I thought, \u201cWow! This is scientifically true.\u201d Only to find that what they actually found was a tooth of an extinct pig\u2014and everything else on that picture\u2014to my deceived young mind\u2014was an artist\u2019s rendition of \u201cwhat we know the missing link is going to look like once we find it.\u201d\n\nIf this process has been going on for billions and billions of years\u2014as they tell us it has\u2014we should find missing links everywhere, shouldn\u2019t we? And the only thing you can give me is an artist\u2019s rendition of it from an extinct pig\u2019s tooth? We\u2019re being deceived, folks. The fact of the matter is, the Bible doesn't say that life is all related\u2014apes produce humans; it says that things produce after their own kind.\n\nVerse 13, \u201cAnd there was evening and there was morning, a third day<\/em>.\u201d After their own kind is very significant to understanding the spiritual birth. Because Jesus, when He was speaking to Nicodemus at night\u2014I call it the \u201cNick at Night Conversation\u201d\u2014told him, \u201cYou must be born again to see or enter the Kingdom of God\u201d (John 3:3-6).\n\nThen Jesus says this in verse 6, \u201cThat which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit<\/em>.\u201d What is He referring to? He's referring to, \u201cthey produce after their own kind.\u201d The flesh can\u2019t give you the Spirit. In fact, if you're a human being and you get the Spirit inside of you, that's not something that was produced by the flesh. That involves a miracle of God that God implants into you because that would be an example of something coming into me that's different than my own kind\u2014not \u201cafter\u201d it. Do you see that?\n\nThat's why the greatest miracle that God is doing today is He is putting His Spirit in the hearts and minds of people who can't produce it on their own. Because the only thing the flesh can produce is the flesh, and things produce after their own kind. I can't produce the Spirit.\n\nNo amount of religiosity, or trying harder<\/em>, or being \u201cgooder\u201d can give me the supernatural work; it's something that only God can do! Because God has to defy His pattern of doing things because I can't get it on my own! I can only produce flesh. The work of the new birth is something outside of your species\u2014outside of your kind\u2014that God supernaturally places inside of you.\n\nThe spiritual birth of a human being is the greatest miracle God is doing today. When it happens in somebody, it's an absolute miracle! \u201cWell, gee, Pastor, can you think of a good segue into the gospel for today?\u201d Well, if that's not a segue into the gospel, I don't know what is! There are many people within the sound of my voice\u2014and I know this because I did this for 16 years of my life\u2014who are trying to get spiritual through activity. That's the world of religion.\n\nGod is saying, \u201cIt's not going to come in your life through activity and good intentions and keeping a moral code. It's going to come into your life through a supernatural miracle<\/em>.\u201d And that miracle can only happen in a person when they fulfill God's condition, which is faith alone in Christ alone.\n\nThe only thing the Spirit can do prior to that is convict a person of their need<\/em> to trust in Christ alone by faith alone for salvation. But to actually receive the Holy Spirit inside of you requires something miraculous; God has to deposit it into you\u2014being born from above. And that can't happen through religion. It can't happen through works of the flesh. It can't happen by trying harder<\/em>. It can\u2019t happen by walking an aisle. It can't happen by joining a church. It can't happen by giving money to a church. It can't happen by filling out a decision card. It can only happen miraculously.\n\nAnd God gives us the condition for the miracle, which is to believe. \u201cBelieve\u201d is another way of saying \u201ctrust.\u201d The Spirit convicts us of our need to do this, and we trust in what Christ has done for us and\u2014boom! \u201cKatie, bar the door!\u201d If that's happened to a person? Pow! They\u2019re regenerated at the point of faith alone in Christ alone.\n\nSo, if you want that miracle to happen to you\u2014and don't wait around for a bigger one\u2014this is as big as it gets\u2014our exhortation is for anybody to trust in Christ and Christ alone for salvation. That gives you the new birth.\n\n\u201cAnd there was evening and there was morning, a third day<\/em>.\u201d Next time we move away from shaping into populating. Day One connects with Day Four. Day Two connects with Day Five. Day Three connects with Day Six.\n\nDay One, light. Day Four, now God puts the luminaries into the sky to sustain the light. Day Two, water and sky, connects with Day Five, now God is putting sea animals in the sea and birds in the sky. He's populating what He shaped. See that?\n\nDay Three, as we studied today, is land and vegetation. Now, on Day Six, God begins to create animals to exist on the land. And then He creates the pinnacle of His whole created order, which would be who? Humanity, the beings that bear God's image. So that's the direction that we\u2019re moving in. Let's pray.\n\nClosing Prayer<\/strong>\n\n\u201cFather, we\u2019re grateful for this record in the Book of Genesis. It\u2019s so exciting just to study these first three days. And we sit with bated breath wondering what You might have for us the next time we're together as we continue our verse by verse study through the Book of Genesis.\n\nWe\u2019ll be careful to give You all the praise and the glory. We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name.\u201d And God's people said? \u201cAmen.\u201d","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t