Ah, the good old “yom with a number” argument again.
- Exceptions to the rule: Hosea 6:1-2; Zechariah 14:7. IIRC there are other examples as well.
- The way that “yom” is combined with a number (yom ehad, or “day one” — no definite article) in Genesis 1 is unique to Genesis 1. Elsewhere it’s always hayyom harison or hayyom hasseni — with the definite article.
- The context (large, grand scale events) of Genesis 1 is completely different from the context elsewhere (day to day dealings of human beings). See this excellent takedown by @Socratic.Fanatic a couple of years ago.
- There are some very good reasons to believe that this “rule” is a YEC fabrication. It is only ever cited by YECs, and even then only ever in the context of trying to attack the day-age, gap or framework interpretations of Genesis 1. It first appeared in YEC literature in the 1970s and was unheard-of before then.
- Outside of YEC circles, no Hebrew scholar acknowledges its validity.
See: also this paper by Rodney Whitefield .
No, it comes from 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. “A day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.” And just to pre-empt the usual YEC objections to this verse:
- YECs insist that 2 Peter 3:8 comes from a passage that is nothing to do with creation. Yet they equally adamantly insist that 2 Peter 3:4-5 are all about creation. You can’t have it both ways.
- Insisting that “a thousand years are like a day” only gives you a Creation Week that’s 6,000 years long and not 4.5 billion demonstrates the same kind of absurdist wooden literal thinking as the mathematician who, when asked, “Can you tell me the time?” simply answered “Yes.” It also completely misses the point that these verses are making. The point is simply that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between God’s time and our time. It’s saying that a day with the Lord could be any length of time at all from our perspective.
I would advise caution with Answers in Genesis – especially with respect to their claims about evidence for the age of the earth. They are so dogmatic about literal 24 hour days and a young earth that basic principles of technical rigour, factual accuracy and even in some cases basic honesty go right out the window.
Here’s a review of their “ten best evidences for a young earth” that I wrote about a year ago that explains the problem:
On a completely different note, what is it about you young-earth creationists that you so often write it as “bible” (with a lower case “b”) rather than “Bible”? Besides being grammatically incorrect, it’s disrespectul to the Book that you claim to take more seriously than anyone else. The Oxford English Dictionary is clear about this one: using the word “bible” with a lower case “b” is an informal term for a “book regarded as authoritative in a particular sphere.” When referring to the Christian Scriptures specifically, you capitalise it as a proper noun.