Authenticating the Day-Age Theory
  Authenticating The "Day-Age" Theory.

A Critique of Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor's article, "Is The Bible Clear About The Age of the Earth and Universe?" and a logical and systematic defense of the "day-age" theory.

Perhaps the most controversial and dividing aspect of the creation account between fellow Christians is the length of the "days" in Genesis 1. Many Young Earth Creationists like Bebber and Taylor assert that the "days" of Genesis must be interpreted as twenty-four hour periods and that the Bible is emphatically clear on this point. Old Earth Creationists like Dr. Hugh Ross assert that the "days" of creation are long epochs of undetermined length. I will be defending the day-age theory and critiquing Bebber and Taylor's view. I will not be discussing whether Genesis 1 must be understood as literal and chronological or whether it can be viewed theologically where "the framework of the week of creation is an artistic one designed to convey primarily theological, rather than purely scientific, information." 1 Many creation models have been espoused. I will simply be addressing (under the assumption of a literal and chronological reading of the text) whether the "days" of creation can be understood literally as epochs or long periods of time.

Some of Bebber and Taylor's Reasons For Dismissing the Day-Age Theory

1. The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

2. The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

3. When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

4. There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

5. Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, "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." God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

Also, its interesting to note Bebber and Taylor's explanation of the day-age theory's popularity given that scripture is clear and decisive on this issue in their opinion:

"Ultimately, whether one accepts this information or not probably depends more upon their interpretation of science than of the scriptures. For without the consideration of modern scientific theories of the age of the universe, there can be little reason to question the clear communication of the Bible."

Their argument may seem convincing but lets see how it holds up under careful scrutinization.

1. The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

Bebber and Taylor accurately concede the Hebrew word for day (yown) has more than one meaning. It logically follows that each one of these meanings when used is a literal translation of the word. So if yown can mean "twenty-four hours"or an "unspecified duration of time" then it would seem both Bebber and Taylor's twenty-four hour view and the day-age theory advocated chiefly by Dr. Ross' are both LITERAL interpretations of the text. The Young Earth Old Earth debate does not center around whether one interprets the "days" figuratively or literally. That is an important fact. Its literal vs. literal. Not literal vs. figurative.

The New International Version Bible Dictionary disagrees with Bebber and Taylor's statement that the meaning is always clear when read in its proper context:

"The length of the creative days of Genesis 1 is not stated in the Bible. The Hebrew word "day" may mean a period of light between two periods of darkness, a period of light together with the preceding period of darkness, or a long period of time. All three usages occur often in the Bible. No one of them is exactly twenty-four hours, though the second one is near it. There is no indisputable indication as to which of the three is meant. The Bible gives no specific statement as to how long ago matter was created, how long ago the first day of creation began, or when the sixth day ended."2

It should also be noted that there is an unusual syntax in the sentences enumerating the creation days that also appears to disagree with Bebber and Taylor's statement. "Looking at the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one finds this phraseology: "and was evening and was morning day X." The New International Version phrases the time markers this way: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the Xth day." The word arrangement is clearly a departure from simple and ordinary expression. It creates an ambiguity. If "day X" were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form (as the King James Version renders it): "And the evening and the morning were the Xth day." We would expect the literal Hebrew to say, "and were evening and morning day X." But it does not. This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it does suggest that "day" here is to be taken in some unusual manner."3

I think a more accurate assessment of the Biblical use of yowm is to say that the majority of the time the intended meaning is clear from the context rather than saying EVERY time.

2. The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

The first reference to "day" in the creation account appears in verse five.

"Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."

As quoted earlier, this first reference along with the other enumerations has an unusual syntax to it. If it was God's intention to point out clear 24-hour creation days one would expect to find different wording in the text. Also, it is important to delve into the Hebrew behind "evening" and "morning" as well. The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage." In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of "day," however it is used. For example, "in my grandfather's day" refers to my grandfather's lifetime. So the morning and evening of his day would be his youth and old age.' 4

3. When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

One possible exception to this might lie in the book of Hosea. For hundreds of years some Bible commentators have stated that the "days" in Hosea 6:2 refer to a year, years, thousand years or possibly more. 5 Hosea 6:2 reads: "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence." If these commentators are accurate in their assessment this then becomes a clear cut example of what Bebber and Taylor say does not exist.

Bebber and Taylor's argument is true for days of human activity but not necessarily for days of Divine activity. Another relevant point is that nowhere apart from Genesis 1 does the Bible have an opportunity of enumerating sequential epochs. And most importantly, despite the statistics, there is no rule of Hebrew Grammar that requires yowm to refer only to a 24-hour period when an ordinal is attached.

4. There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

I already touched on this before when talking about the unusual syntax of the verses that enumerating God's creative days ("and was evening and was morning day X"). We are also speaking about days of divine activity as opposed to days of human activity. Psalm 90:4:"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Both Genesis 1 and Psalm 90 have the same author in my opinion. Moses seems to be implying that just as God's ways are not our ways, God's days are not our days either.

The word "day" shows extremely flexible usage in the Old Testament. Sometimes it signifies an indefinite period of time(Genesis 2:4; Isaiah 22:5; etc.). In Isaiah 2:12 and Joel 2:15 it refers to the great day of final judgment." It is even used to denote a birthday in Job 3:1! Genesis 2:4 literally reads, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day that they were created." The creative week is being referred to as a single day.

5. Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, "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." God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

Seven is a significant number in the Bible. The creation account itself is filled with lots of sevens. The author of Genesis focuses on the number seven or a multiple of the number seven in the creation account "In Genesis 1:1-2:3 (e.g., seven words in the original Hebrew version of the introductory verse [1:1]; seven paragraphs corresponding to the seven days following the introductory verse fourteen words in v. 2 seven instances of the fulfillment formula signifying that what God called for did take place seven examples of the approval formula stating that what God saw was good seven occurrences altogether of the terms "light" and "day" in the first paragraph [1:2-5]; seven references to water in paragraphs 2 and 3 [1:6-13]; three consecutive sentences of seven words each in [2:2-3a]; that are part of the seventh paragraph [2:1-3]; whose subject is the seventh day thirty-five words in the seventh paragraph thirty-five occurrences of the word "God" and twenty-one of the word "earth" throughout the narrative ). In the Bible, seven and its multiples frequently connote completeness, totality, fulfillment, or perfection." 6

The commandment in Exodus 20:11 is pointing to God's creative week as an analogy for the sabbath. Leviticus25:3 reads, "For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards." The ratio here is six to one. We see the same ratio in Exodus 23:10-12. "For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. 12 Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed." We see a pattern followed in the Bible of six work and one rest that was established by God in Genesis 1. Concerning Exodus 20:11, Gleason Archer has stated, "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' anymore than the eight day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days." 7

"Ultimately, whether one accepts this information or not probably depends more upon their interpretation of science than of the scriptures. For without the consideration of modern scientific theories of the age of the universe, there can be little reason to question the clear communication of the Bible."

Here I want to point out the beliefs of some early church fathers and a few early Jewish scholars. For it is impossible to say modern science has contaminated their exegetical proficiency concerning the creation days. I'd also like to dispel the myth that 24-hour creation days are the "traditional" interpretation of Genesis 1.

    Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews:
    Book 1 - Chapter 1
    1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time.

Josephus never did fall through on his promise but unlike Bebber and Taylor, it seams he didn't find the wording to be clearly communicated as it deserved an explanation in his opinion.

    Philo Judaeus: The Creation of the World, c. 30 CE
    III. And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement; and, of all numbers, six is, by the laws of nature, the most productive: for of all the numbers, from the unit upwards, it is the first perfect one, being made equal to its parts, and being made complete by them; the number three being half of it, and the number two a third of it, and the unit a sixth of it, and, so to say, it is formed so as to be both male and female, and is made up of the power of both natures; for in existing things the odd number is the male, and the even number is the female; accordingly, of odd numbers the first is the number three, and of even numbers the first is two, and the two numbers multiplied together make six. It was fitting, therefore, that the world, being the most perfect of created things, should be made according to the perfect number, namely, six: and, as it was to have in it the causes of both, which arise from combination, that it should be formed according to a mixed number, the first combination of odd and even numbers, since it was to embrace the character both of the male who sows the seed, and of the female who receives it. And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions of the whole, taking out the first day, which he does not even call the first day, that it may not be numbered with the others, but entitling it one, he names it rightly, perceiving in it, and ascribing to it the nature and appellation of the unit.

Philo did not believe the days of creation were literal 24-hour periods. He believe in an instantaneous creation. Philo in a later work added to this:

    Philo Judaeus: Allegorical Interpretation
    It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth; but the sun is part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would there be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven's movement that was the index of the nature of time. When, then, Moses says, "he finished His work on the sixth day," we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely six.

In Philo's words, it is quite foolish to think that creation occurred in six days.

    Clement of Alexandria
    The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 16
    The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," " by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder. For the creations on the different days followed in a most important succession; so that all things brought into existence might have honour from priority, created together in thought, but not being of equal worth. Nor was the creation of each signified by the voice, inasmuch as the creative work is said to have made them at once. For something must needs have been named first. Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.

Clement is often supported as believing in literal 24-hour creation days but this is not true. Clement believed the days communicated the order and priority of created things.

    Origen, Fist Principles, Book 4
    For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

Origen taught that when approaching difficulties in scripture we should seek a spiritual rather than literal meaning. He viewed creation as one example of scenario.

    Augustine, The City of God
    "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean."
    Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
    "But at least we know that it [Genesis Creation Day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."

Augustine's comments that what these days mean might be impossible to explain in words. Later, in another work he states that the 'days' of creation are different from ordinary days.

As one should glean from the citations above, there were varying interpretations as to what the "days" of creation meant and as to how long they actually were. The 24-hour creation-day model is by no means the traditional interpretation. Traditionally, there has been a diversity of views on the subject. Most importantly, these citations come from a period long before geological, astronomical and paleontological evidence demonstrated the antiquity of the earth. Ergo, they resist the charge of "compromisers."

One source of confusion may be lie in the perpetual usage of the word "day" in popular translations of the creation account and in popular Biblical Commentaries. If yowm should be understood as an epoch in the creation account why not refer to them as the epochs of creation? I think the answer is quite simple. Its sort of an idiom. Calling them the "days" of creation is merely the conventional way of referring to God's sequential acts of creation recorded in Genesis 1. Some of the church fathers listed above are often quoted in support of 24-hour creation days. Why? Because they too used the creation idiom in their works but they all were not convinced that the days of creation were 24-hours.

I'd like to go through a few other reasons not mentioned by Bebber and Taylor that some use to reject the day-age theory. Something like this is often found on the internet:

    If I were to quote one scholar to back up this statement, the reader may not be impressed. But what if that scholar was a leading Oxford University professor of Hebrew who claimed that, as far as he knew, all other similar world class Hebrew language scholars were of the same mind?
    The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
    Professor Barr said,
    "Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."
    There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example.
    But the above makes it clear that it is hardly likely to be the text itself that leads them to this conclusion. Rather, it is almost certainly the desire to accommodate and harmonize opinions and world views (in this case, the idea of long geological ages) which arise from outside Scripture.

This was found here It was adapted from an article from Answers In Genesis that appeared in Creation Magazine. The quotation sounds very convincing but lets look at some more of Barr's letter:

Letter of 23 April 1984 from James Barr, then Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, to David C.C. Watson

    I have thought about your question, and would say that probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.

Is Barr simply telling us openly and honestly how the text is understood as was claimed? Does the above make it clear that the day-age interpretation is hardly likely to stem from a study of the text? A few notes on Barr's letter:

1. Barr's letter has a tentative nature to it. Examples:

"PROBABLY and so far that I know."

"are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

"I think what I say."

2. The article, as do most references to this as evidence of 24-hour creation days, left out what Barr qualified his earlier statements with.

3. Barr stated that, "Most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other." He also stated that he thought he represented their views fairly well but if they avoid much involvement in this sort of argument its hard to know their actual views.

4. Barr concedes that one might find a few people of a contrary point of view who are competant in the languages.

5. Barr also concedes that "it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence", but "of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is". This last qualification defeats the argument that Barr was just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means (i.e. offering a neutral, expert linguistic analysis of what the Hebrew words mean). It is clear from the text that Barr was presenting his own private interpretation based upon his prior assumption of the sort of text he believes Genesis to be.

Another common proof against the day-age explained and critiqued by Dr. Ross

"Young earthers also hold the view that the Hebrew word 'Olam (as opposed to yom) would have been used to indicate a long time period. However, Hebrew lexicons show that only in post-Biblical writings did 'olam only refer to a long age or epoch. In Biblical times it meant "forever," "perpetual," "lasting," "always," "of olden times," "the remote past, future, or both." But the range of its usage did not include a set period of time."8

Lastly I'd like to briefly introduce a few topics that you may study on your own that I feel can offer support to the day-age interpretation. Some of these are only supportive if one adheres to the idea of interpreting scripture in the light of other scripture:

Support for the Day-age interpretation

1. Genesis 2:4 literally reads (kjv) "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

Does describing a single 24-hour day creation week with the word "generations"seem logical? The plural form of generations is used. In Hebrew the word is "toledah" and I believe Lexicons reveal it always refers to a longer period if time than six or seven days.

2. There are explicit statements of the Earth's antiquity found in scripture"

Habakkuk 3:6 (NIV) "He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal."

2. Peter 3:5 (NIV) But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

3. The unusual syntax discussed above and found in Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, and 1:31 ("and was evening and was morning day X")

4. The continuation of the 7th day. In the creation account all the days close with "and there was evening and there was morning day x" but not the seventh day. Many commentators feel God's day of rest continues even now. Ergo, the seventh creation day is said to be literally thousands of years in length. Verses cited in support of this view are found in Hebrews 4 and Psalm 95. As stated in the NIV Bible Dictionary (p.240 under CREATION), "No end to the rest of the seventh day is mentioned. As far as the Bible tells us, God's rest from creating still continues.

5. Figures of speech demonstrating the antiquity of the earth:

Psalm 90:2-6 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning--though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered.

Proverbs 8:22-32 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. "Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.

Other examples would include Eccles 1:3-11 and Micah 6:2

6. Could the events of the 6th day really happen in 24-hours?

"Genesis 1 tells us that all the land mammals and both Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. Genesis 2 provides further amplification, listing events between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. First, God planted a garden in Eden, making "all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground." Then Adam, after receiving instructions from God, worked and cared for the garden of Eden. After that, he carried out his assignment from God to name all the animals (the nephesh creatures--i.e., all the birds and mammals). In the process Adam discovered that none of these creatures was a suitable helper and companion for him.

Apparently Adam had sufficient interaction with the plants and animals of the garden to realize that something was missing from his life. Next, God put Adam into a deep sleep, performed and operation and, after Adam awoke, introduced him to the newly created Eve."9

After that the first couple received instructions concerning their responsibilities. It doesn't seem probable that all this occurred in a single 24-hour day.

Note that the creatures Adam named were most-likely those confined to the environs of Eden and the surrounding areas of close proximity. Not polar bears, kangaroos etc.

Conclusion

I think the day-age interpretation is not only a viable alternative to the calendar-day interpretation under the assumption of a literal and chronological reading of the text but, that overall, it is more consistent than the calendar-day interpretation. If a person studies the ideas supporting the day-age interpretation I briefly introduced up above they should come to the conclusion that viewing the "days" of creation as epochs is logically more consistent with other scripture than the calendar view. There has been a rich diversity of views on this subject in the past. Though, in the end, I feel compelled to admitthe fact that the Bible leaves the age of the earth open. The only specific thing we know about the timing of Genesis 1 from scripture is that there was beginning at some point in the past. I think it has been demonstrated the the Bible is not at odds with the astronomical, geological and paleontological evidences of the earth's age. Yes, there are plenty of other issues (the sun on day 4) to take up but the age of the earth is not one of them.

1 . Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, under the heading of Creation found here: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

2 . NIV Bible Dictionary, under the heading of Creation, p. 240

3 Creation and Time, Hugh Ross, p 48

4 Creation and Time, Hugh Ross, p 46.

Ross' Reference Sources:

  • Harris, R Laird; Archer, Gleason L,; and Waltke, Bruce K., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. II (Chicago: Moody, 1980), page 694.
  • Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1 page 125
  • Brown, Francis; Driver, S.R.; and Briggs, Charles A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1968), pages 787-788.
  • Brown, Driver, and Briggs, pages 133-134
5 Hosea 6:2 "days" as long periods of time sources:
  • William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, p 109
  • Calvin, Jean, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Phrophets, Volume I: Hosea, trans. John Owen pp 218-219.
  • Given, J.J., "Hosea," The Pultpit Commentary, vol. 13, Daniel, Hosea, and Joel, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, pp 166-167

6 Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, found under the heading of Creation

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

7 Gleason Archer, "A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science," Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, p. 329

8 Creation and Time, Dr. Hugh Ross, p. 47

9 Ibid., p.50-51

1