Days of Creation in Genesis One 00825

1Six Days or Millions of Years?

1A common belief is that the universe and world we see today evolved over several millions of years. It is also believed by many in the church that the days of creation were millions of years. We will look at whether or not deep time is consistent with biblical teaching.2

2The Bible states plainly that earth, space, light and time were created on day one; the atmosphere on day two; dry land and plants on day 3; the sun, moon, and stars on day 4, and so on.3Day may mean:Opposite of nightA division of time: e.g., working day; days journey; the daylight portion of a dayIndefinite: some days, a few daysA period of 24 hoursA long time: e.g. many daysA special day: e.g., day of adversity, day of birthA future time: e.g., some day I will be a fireman

(list is not exhaustive)

3It is often said that the word day has several different meanings; and that is true. However, when a word has a range of meaning, how does one determine which meaning is intended?4Context, context, contextQualifying words in immediate contextLarger context of sentence or paragraph

4Well, you look at other neighbouring words in the sentence or paragraph. This is called context. Context is important in determining the meaning of a word which has a range of meanings.5

5Here is an example of the word day used with three different meanings. The first day is qualified by the word father so the word day means the time period during which my father lived or during his lifetime. The second day is qualified by a number, therefore, means a period of about 10 24-hour periods. The third day is qualified by the phrase during the and so means the daylight portion of the day.6Day in Genesis chapter 1Qualified by a numberone day, second day, third day, etc.Qualified by the phrase evening and morning

6Regarding creation, the word day in Genesis chapter one is qualified by both a number and the phrase evening and morning.7

7Why question only Genesis?8

8Outside of Genesis chapter one, day means an ordinary day when these qualifiers are in immediate context.9

9If day really means a long time, just where does one fit in the supposed millions of years?10

10Some people quote 2 Peter 3:8 as showing that one day can be an long time, such as one thousand years.11

11But they conveniently ignore the latter part of the verse. They cancel each other out. And the verse is speaking about how time is not really applicable to God, since He is eternal. 12

12The Bible states that Jonah was in the belly of a whale for 3 days. If we apply the logic that one day is a thousand years, does this mean that Jonah was in the whale for 3,000 years?13We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists' view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and an even older universe.

James Montgomery Boice, Genesis, An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 1, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, pp. 5762, 1982.

13The late James Montgomery Boice, a theologian, wrote [read slide]. Notice that he states that the exegetical basis is strong and that there is scientific evidence in favour of a young earth view. Yet, he takes the side of an old earth because of other science. I suspect that Boice did not differentiate between scientific proclamations regarding history and operational science, nor did he understand the tentative nature of science. The sole and only reason for rejecting a young earth and that the days of creation were not days, in his view, is because of so-called science. The strong exegetical case for a young earth is trumped by so-called science.14From 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. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.

Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.

14The late Gleason Archer wrote, [read quote]. Again, notice that it is not exegesis which determines the meaning of the days of creation, it is so-called science. Again, I suspect that Archer did not think critically of the difference between history and the limits of operational science. Notice also that he calls the reading of Genesis 1 superficial. Reading Genesis 1 plainly, without outside ideas, one can only conclude that these men blind to their inconsistencies and would rather practice eisegesis when it comes to the days of creation.15

15Has the scientist become the new theologian? Is the scientist now the authority on how to interpret Scripture?16

Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Science proves this cant be true!Science proves this cant be true!

16Unfortunately, many in the evangelical church believe that science has now disproven the view that the days of creation were six days.17

No!No!No!No!No!No!Science proves these cant be true, either!

17Why not believe science when it comes to the virgin birth, miracles, or Jesus resurrection?18

18You see, it is the same hermeneutic. Using the same principles of interpretation and if you want to be consistent you have to rule out the miracles in both the Old and New Testaments, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ.19Gen. 2:4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. (NASB)

In this instance day is not qualified by a number or the words evening or morningIn this verse day is beyom (), yom modified by the preposition be, which is an Hebrew idiom for when as the NIV translates it.

19Some people quote Gen. 2:4 and state that day here is not a 24 hour period. However, in this instance, notice that day is not qualified by a number or the phrase evening and morning so the word day can mean other than a 24 hour period in this verse. The NIV translates in the day as when recognizing that it is a Hebrew idiom. 20If any one is in search of accurate information regarding the age of the earth, or its relation to the sun, moon and stars, or regarding the order in which plants and animals have appeared upon it, he is referred to recent text-books in astronomy, geology, and paleontology. No one for a moment dreams of referring a serious student of these subjects to the Bible as a source of information. It is not the object of writers of Scripture to impart physical instruction or to enlarge the bounds of scientific knowledge.Expositors Bible, Marcus Dods, Eerdmans Publishing, 1947, Pg. 5

20Marcus Dods, a liberal theologian, who did not believe what Scripture said about creation, wrote:[read slide]. But note again, the confounding of history with operational science.21if, for example, the word day in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.

Marcus Dods, Expositors Bible ( T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, 1888). Quoted in Creation and Change, Douglas F. Kelly, Mentor, Great Britain, 1999, reprint.

21Yet he also wrote that:Although Dods, did not believe that God created in six days, he states that this is what the Bible teaches.22Francis Schaeffer:The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. As it is clear that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours.1

However, the Hebrew idiom in this verse is beyom; and lacks any number or the words evening and morning.

1. Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (1972, p. 59).

22I like reading Francis Schaeffers books, I own a few, but all the verses that he makes reference to all lack a number or the phrase evening and morning so day in these instances can mean other than an ordinary day. 23Other words to convey long ages (md) an indefinite time word (olm) age (iddn) Aramaic indicating an indefinite period of time

23If God really wanted to communicate to us that the days of creation were long ages, there are other words which God could have used to convey that idea.24Consider this:All those who argue that six days are not really six days must use the same grammatical structure they are arguing against.

24Those who argue that the word day in Genesis 1 can be other than an ordinary day must use the word day with a number in immediate context and are required to use the same syntax they are arguing against. Otherwise, their argument would make not sense.25Avoiding the discussion on day being a day

25Many in the evangelical church simply avoid discussing the length of the days of creation stating several reasons.26The length of the days of creation is a side issue.If the Bible is wrong on matters of origins, then what makes it right on matters of morals, faith, and salvation?

The real issue is the authority of Gods Word. Does mans opinion supersede Gods written revelation?

26Some in the evangelical church call the discussion a side issue. However, [read slide]. After all, who was present when God created? Was the scientist present?27The length of the days of creation is a side issue.When television, radio, magazines, and newspapers frequently espouse a millions of years old earth and ridicule biblical creation, is it a side issue?When students are indoctrinated in our schools, colleges, and universities about earth being millions of years old, and the Bible is simply wrong, it a side issue?

27The media is fraught with articles that earth came into existence over millions of years. Teachers and professors in our schools, colleges and universities ridicule biblical creation. Is this a side issue? 28The length of the days of creation is a side issue.When four out of five high school students attending evangelical churches drop out of church by the time they reach their senior year1, is it a side issue?

When science is given a magisterial, or authoritative, role over Scripture and its interpretation, is it a side issue?1. Survey in the U.S., from the Barna Research Group, cited in New Man, May/June 2002, p.33.

28From a survey in the United States, it was found that four out of five high school student attending evangelical churches would drop out of church by the time they reached their senior year. Is this a side issue?When the authority of Scripture is usurped by the opinions of men, is this a side issue?When science is given authority on how to interpret Scripture, is this is side issue?29Only important that God created, not how long He took.Some have stated that It only matters that God created, not how long He took. If such is the case, then only Gen. 1:1 need apply, and the following verses are irrelevant. Whatever happened to All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness?

29Some people state that It only matters that God created, not how long He took. If this is the case, then all we really need is Genesis 1:1. If only Genesis 1:1 is pertinent, where, at which verse, does Genesis start to have relevance?30Discussing the length of the days of creation is too divisive.It is said that we should focus on more important matters, and allow for various views on the days of creation. Peace and unity should be emphasized.While peace and unity are good and honourable and ought to be sought, is it at any expense? What about the search for truth? There can be unification around anything as long as a group of people feel the same way about that issue - witness the numerous cults.

30Some view the issue as being too divisive in the church and so ignore the day-age, young-earth, creation-evolution discussion altogether. It is argued that peace and unity should be emphasized. While peace and unity are good and honourable and ought to be sought, is it at any expense? What about the search for truth? There can be unification around anything as long as a group of people feel the same way about that issue - witness the numerous cults.Jesus Christ Himself said "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, motherinlaw against her daughterinlaw and daughterinlaw against her motherinlaw." Real, true truth divides that from which is false. If six days be true all other views are false. If six days really means long-ages, then the six-day view is false; however, this opens up a series of issues which have been discussed throughout this paper.In accepting a long age view the authority of Scripture has been compromised. In the long term, because of compromise, when children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on, leave the faith, who is really dividing the kingdom of God?Long-agers appeal for young-earth creationists to stop making the six-days an issue, but themselves do not stop endorsing and disseminating a long-age view. Both young earth creationists and old-earth creationists believe that true science will never contradict the Bible. Young earth creationists are not advocating kicking people out of the church if they do not believe in a literal six-day creation. But they are asking people to look at little deeper into what they believe and why they believe it. They are asking people to look into the role of science in relation to the Bible. They are asking people to actually look into the science and discern between what is interpretation and what is the real scientific evidence.

31Watch out which theological train you get on because your ticket is punched further on down the line. And it may not be your ticket, but your childrens ticket or their childrens ticket, and so on.

Dr. Franklin Pyles, currently Director of Christian and Missionary Alliance of Canada. Former professor of theology, Canadian Theological Seminary. A caution given to his students during a theology lecture. The issue is too divisive

31Here is a piece of sage advice I received from a former professor who received the same advice from one of his former professors. When your children, grand children and so on leave Gods Kingdom because of the lack of confidence and trust in the Scriptures, who is really dividing the church?32Discussing the length of the days of creation is too divisive.Real, true truth divides that from which is false. If six days be true then all other views are false. If six days really means long-ages, then the six-day view is false.In accepting a long age view the authority of Scripture has been compromised. In the long term, because of compromise, when children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on, leave the faith, who is really dividing the kingdom of God?

32[Read slide]33

33Eisegesis is reading outside ideas into the text. And many who do not believe in a six-day creation are doing just that. They may not realize it but it is what they are doing.34

34Believing that the six days of creation were billions of years really means believing the speculations of fallible men, who were not present at creation, over the revealed words of God, who was present at creation.35When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, the grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.continued

35In Martin Luthers day, he had the opposite problem; many believed God created everything in one day. He wrote: [read slide]36For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.

Martin Luther, What Martin Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian, p. 1523.

36Read slide.37Some recommended readingRefuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan SarfatiThousands Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoungThe Young Earth by John D. MorrisUnformed and Unfilled by Weston W. Fields

37Some recommended readings. Refuting Compromise is a thorough refutation of Hugh Ross progressive creationism. Thousands Not Billions looks at scientific research supporting a young earth. The Young Earth looks at the presuppositions and assumptions behind old earth geology. Unformed and Unfilled is a thorough refutation of the Gap Theory. The author goes into detailed Hebrew exegesis. 38AcknowledgementsAnswers in GenesisCreation Ministries InternationalInstitute for Creation Research