Are the Genesis days 'ages'?

In an effort to make the Genesis text fit geological time it has been proposed by numerous people that the 6 days of creation are in fact a description of 6 ages, or long periods of time.

I don't think this is correct. The use of 'evening' and 'morning' to describe the extremities of each day signal to me that they are literal days that are being described.

But the argument comes back that the Hebrew word yom, that is translated 'day', is in other parts of scripture used to describe a period of time. This happens in expressions like 'in that day' where the writer is clearly pointing to a lengthy period of time much greater than 24 hours.

This may be true but the problem is that here yom is being used ias part of an idiomatic expression. If we remove the single word out of the whole phrase then it no longer still caries the whole phrase's meaning. For example, take the phrase "Watford played a long ball game". Here 'ball' is being used as part of an expression that means a type of pass in football. But if we take the word out of that context it is no longer correct to define ball as meaning pass. If it did then to say "Pass me the ball" would be a bit of a strange request.

This problem arises from trying to take a passage that was never intended to be a literal description of natural history and make it fit such a chronology.

What is so offensive about metaphysics?

Perhaps the most famous reading of Genesis chapter 1 was on Christmas Eve 1968 when the first ten verses were read from space via the Apollo 8 spacecraft.

Offence was taken by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an American atheist, who filed a lawsuit contesting that this was a violation of the separation between church and state.

This makes me ask the question, why do differing metaphysical views cause us such consternation? Why could she not accept it as an expression of someone else's faith, albeit one different to her own?

Undoubtedly whatever our worldview it is important to us, and for many of us it is important to try and share it with others. For the Christian the gospel is good news and therefore there is an imperative to share it. An atheist may look at religious wars and decide that for this reason they need to evangelise their own philosophy.

These can be seen as positive exertions of faith, but to actually go to the extent of complaining, or even suing someone, over the free expression of the poetry of Genesis 1 is baffling. Or is it?

We invest a great deal of ourselves in whatever our worldview is, so inevitably we will defend it. There is too the common need of 'I am right-ism' that makes us want to see other people finding our views persuasive.

This self-defence is a weakness. Those who are intellectually honest will accept the challenge to think and explore all possible alternatives without having to roll down the shutters. And those people will often be the less vocal and militant - because they don't need to be.

Marked contrasts

Whilst there have been some posts on this blog that highlight the ways in which Genesis relates itself to Ancient Near East mythologies, it is equally important to note the ways in which it contrasts.

In the ANE creation was made to serve the gods. But in the Genesis account creation is there for the benefit of humanity. The cosmos is good because it provides a home for us.

In the ANE people are also made to serve the gods, but in Genesis people are called into relationship with God, co-workers with him.

We really are the climax of creation.