How long were the days of creation? Can they be stretched out to vast ages or understand as long periods of time as those trying to harmonize evolution and the Bible suggest? This page explores the Hebrew language and the biblical text.
If you're interested, the reference given for each quikfact contains further information and explanation. Readers are encouraged to follow up.
1/15/97: Numbered Days
In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word yom is used. This is the word
we translate as "day." In the creation account it is used with a
number, "second day," "third day," etc. throughout the
account. "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." (CAN)
"Terence
Fretheim observes, 'When the word "day" is used with a specific
number, it always has reference to a normal day.'" (Stambaugh)
This is important because wherever writers try to convince the reader that the
days of Genesis are not ordinary days, virtually every time they simply cite a
few examples from the OT (Old Testament) where it does not refer to an ordinary
day, and then act as if that solves everything and gives them warrant to believe
whatever they want about the days of Genesis. On the contrary, such deceptive
arguments and anti-exegesis is appalling. Dr. Weston Fields uses the same term
describing his reaction to the following, all too typical, example:
"Some
still hold this view, but it certainly is not necessary, and the fact that the
word day in the Old Testament, even in the first three chapters of
Genesis carries many meanings other than that of a period of twenty-four hours,
give us perfect freedom in considering it here as an unlimited, though definite
period..." (Smith, p. 312.)
As Fields points out, "Nearly all the
defenders of the [Day-Age] theory fail, however, to give any lexical backing to
the theory. The reader is left completely uninformed concerning in the uses of
yom in the Old Testament." (Fields, p. 169). Fields then proceeds
to do just what the others leave undone to demonstrate conclusively the ordinary
usage of yom in the days of creation. Although his work deals primarily
with Genesis 1:2 and the Gap Theory, the student interested in this question
would do well to examine Fields' work closely.
Sources:
ChristianAnswers.Net, Is
the Bible clear about the age of the earth and universe?
Fields, Weston, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory
(Collinsville, IL: Burgener Enterprises, 1976).
Grigg, Russell, "How
Long Were the Days of Genesis 1?,"
Creation Ex
Nihilo 19(1): 23-25.
Smith, Wilbur, Therefore Stand (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1945). Whoops, Wilbur,
you tripped.
Stambaugh, James, "The Days of Creation:
A Semantic Approach. Part 1,"
Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal, 5(1): 70-74.
1/15/97: Evening and Morning
In Genesis 1:5 God actually defined for us how He was using the word "day"
in the creation account: "And the evening and the morning were the
first day." Thus, the days of creation, first day, second day, and so
on were composed of an "evening" and a "morning." This is
about as clear a definition that could be hoped for (without becoming absurdly
tedious), and requires that the days of creation be composed of the day/night
cycle like an ordinary day.
The word used for morning is boqer, and
for evening, 'ereb (my apologies for the lack of appropriate accent
marks). In most occurences in the OT they refer to the time around the rising
and setting of the sun, not necessarily to the extended periods of time (such as
midnight to noon for morning) that are used today. In some cases boqer
apparently refers to the three hour watch leading up to sunrise, during which
the sky would brighten with the approaching sun. Likewise, in some poetical
passages
'ereb apparently refers to the whole of nighttime until morning.
Finally, where both words are used together they are used as antonyms that
together refer to an entire day. "As the opposite of night the word
represents the entire period of daylight" say Vine, et al, citing
Ps.
92:2 in their exposition of boqer. (Note that this is despite the
fact that at least one of the authors, Unger, denied the plain meaning of
Genesis. See Fields, above, p. 165.)
None of this, of course, gives any
basis for understanding Genesis 1:5 in any other way than as a definition of an
ordinary day. While the meaning of yom (day) may differ according to
context, boqer and 'ereb require that the days defined by them
be ordinary days. There is no hint that either term can or was ever meant to be
understood as long geologic ages or anything even remotely similar.
Stambaugh
comments:
"The two words, 'morning' and 'evening', are combined
with yom 19 times each outside of Genesis 1... with each occurrence a
twenty-four day is signified. This is true no matter what the literary genre or
context might be. It should be further observed that when 'morning' and
'evening' occur together without yom... it always, without exception, designates
a literal solar day."
Sources:
Grigg, Russell, "How Long Were the Days of Genesis 1?,"
Creation Ex
Nihilo 19(1): 23-25.
Stambaugh, James, "The Days of Creation:
A Semantic Approach. Part 1,"
Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal, 5(1): 70-74.
Strong, James,
Strong's
Exhaustive Concordance (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), Hebrew terms
#1242 & #6153.
Vine, W.E., Merrill Unger & William White,
Vine's
Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), pp. 71, 152-153.
Postscript: I'll cover
the objection that "days" could not exist prior to the formation of
the sun elsewhere. (Eventually!) (See "Star Formation and Genesis 1,"
by James Stambaugh, or
Creation Ex
Nihilo 16:2, p. 23, for more info.)
1/15/97: Other Words Could Have Been Used
If the days of creation were actually long periods of time, God could have
prevented tremendous confusion on this point by (1) omitting the "evening/morning"
definition, (2) giving some basis for understanding numbered days as
long periods, and (3) by using another word besides yom. A number of
potential alternatives existed in Hebrew.
If the event happened millions or
billions of years ago or took that long to occur, the words yamim, qedem,
or olam could have been used to emphasize the "ancientness" of
creation. If the intent was to suggest a long and continuing creation, dor,
le olam, tamid, ad olam,
shanah, or yom rab (long day) are some of the terms that could
have been used to make the period of creation much more clear. However, none
of these terms were used to describe the duration or ancientness of creation.
Sources:
Fields, Weston, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory
(Collinsville, IL: Burgener Enterprises, 1976), pp. 170-178.
Grigg,
Russell, "How Long Were the Days of Genesis 1?,"
Creation Ex
Nihilo 19(1): 23-25.
1/15/97: Testimony of the Experts
They may not believe in a young earth, but the Hebrew experts know perfectly
well what Genesis 1 is telling them, and they are unanimous in agreeing that it
refers to ordinary "24-hour" days. (Note that due to tidal drag and
other effects, the days of creation may have been somewhat different
lengths of time than they are now, differing by minutes or hours at most.)
For example, Professor James Barr, Hebrew expert at Oxford, wrote the
following in a letter (4/23/84) to creationist author David C.C. Watson:
"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." (CAN)
Dr. John Howitt once sent a letter to Hebrew
experts at nine leading universities asking this very question. He gave them the
choice of interpreting "day" in Genesis 1 as (a) a day as commonly
understood, (b) a long age, or (c) either without preference. Oxford and
Cambridge did not respond, but Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Toronto, London, McGill
and Manitoba all affirmed unanimously that is should be translated as a
day as commonly understood. Professor Pfeiffer of Harvard added "of
twenty-four hours" in his reply. (Davidheiser, p. 2.)
Sources:
ChristianAnswers.net, Six
Days? Honestly!
Davidheiser, Bolton, A Statement Concerning the Ministry of Dr. Hugh
Ross (Canoga Park, CA: Logos, 1993).
Grigg, Russell, "How Long
Were the Days of Genesis 1?,"
Creation Ex
Nihilo 19(1): 23-25.
1/15/97: Testimony of the Church Fathers
Early Christians had to contend with Greek ideas of an eternal or ancient
earth just as modern Christians must contend with the evolutionary religions.
And just as some Christians today compromise between hostile worldviews, so also
did early "gnostic Christians" try to harmonize the Bible and Greek
speculation and myth. So what did the authorities of the early Church believe
about the days of Genesis?
The popular and charismatic astronomer Dr. Hugh
Ross, in his anti-creationist polemic (Ross, 1994), gives a remarkably dishonest
and distorted picture of what the early Church fathers thought and wrote about
this issue. He claims fifteen early fathers in support of his (Day-Age) beliefs
and implies that most others were also on his side. This is accomplished by
quoting from the few who really can be cited in vague support of the Day-Age
theory, mixing in similar-sounding quotes from other figures that are misleading
and don't actually deal with this issue, ignoring clear and contradictory
evidence in other writings and omitting mention of details that detract from his
imaginative revisionism.
Apologists Taylor and van Bebber (1994) examined
these claims in detail and whittled Ross's list down to three, with an
additional two of unknown position. They note, "Most of the Church Fathers
that Ross lists supported literal days." (p. 93.) In addition, Dr. Bolton
Davidheiser (1993, pp. 2-3) had publicly criticized Dr. Ross for making
demonstrably false claims regarding this issue previously, and had sent copies
of his criticism to Ross well prior to publication of his book, so he has no
excuse.
Of those whom Ross lists, they actually break down, as best anyone
can determine, as follows (Taylor & van Bebber, p. 95):
LITERAL DAYS: Justin Martyr (definite), Irenaeus (very likely), Lactantius
(def.), Augustine (probable; believed in young earth), Victorinus of Pettau
(def.), Methodius of Olympus (def.), Basil (def.), Ambrose (def.), Theophilus of
Antioch (def.), Martin of Braga (def.), and Josephus (a Jew, very likely).
UNCLEAR: Hippolytus and Eusebius
ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL: Philo (a Jew, definite), Clement of Alexandria (likely,
position on ancient earth unclear), Origen (possibly; did not believe in an
ancient earth)
This is a remarkably different picture than what is painted by Ross
- and many others who have preceded or followed him. But what do I mean by "Alexandrian
School"? This refers to the trio that could be plausibly cited in support
of Ross's aliteral position on Genesis. Taylor and van Bebber write (pp. 94,
96):
"The school of Alexandria was founded by Clement in an
attempt to harmonize the teachings of the Bible with the 'truths' of Greek
philosophy. The peculiar, unorthodox theological views of the Alexandrian
allegorists such as Clement and Origen are well-known to evangelical scholars.
These men had a strong tendency to heavily allegorize much of Scripture. Their
interpretations denied or de-emphasized the literal, historical aspect of the
various narratives in favor of mystical, 'spiritual,' allegorical
interpretations.
Although Origen was a dedicated Christian and prolific author, he was
controversial even in his own time due to various personal views. He was the
greatest allegorizer of all. For example, Origen denied hell, teaching that
everyone would eventually be saved, even Satan and his demons. His views were a
precursor to various wrong doctrines and heresies."
Davidheiser concurred (p. 3), "Origen held so many erroneous
views that what he thought of the length of days of creation may be dismissed as
of little if any value... He believed the task of commentators is to penetrate
alleged allegories of Scripture in order to find the true meaning. This method
opens the way for private erroneous interpretations, as is characteristic of
cults."
Thus, the attempt to gather support from early Christians
backfires terribly for modern compromisers. Origen taught heresies such as
universalism (that everyone would be saved, without needing faith in Christ) and
denied the doctrine of the Trinity. He didn't believe in literal days of Genesis
for the simple reason that he didn't believe in much of a literal anything
in Scripture!
Those who compromised on the days of Genesis soon compromised on Christian
doctrine as well. (Thompson, 1995)
The following quotations give a
somewhat better idea of what these early Christians thought about the days of
creation:
St. Basil: "'And there was evening and morning, one day.' Why
did he say 'one' and not 'first'?... He said 'one' because he was defining the
measure of day and night..., since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of
one day." (Lavallee, p. iii.)
"God made everything
together, that is to say, at one time, and in a short time." "'So
there was evening and there was morning.' This is to be understood as the
duration of one day and one night." (Batten, p.23.)
"Those
who do not accept the Scripture in their ordinary, common meaning, say that
'water' is not water but something else; plants and fishes they interpret as
they please; the creation of reptiles and wild beasts they explain in their own
way, twisting it from the obvious sense as do the interpreters of dreams - who
give whatever meaning they choose to the images seen in sleep. As for me, when I
hear the word 'grass' I think of grass, and the same with plant, fish, wild
beast, domestic animal. I take everything in the literal sense, for 'I am not
ashamed of the Gospel.'" (Ibid.)
(Anyone who has read
Ross's exegesis (yeegads, what an abuse of the term) in ch. 15 & 16 of his
book would do well to ponder those words, with a Bible and Strong's Concordance
in hand!)
"Reject the foolish ideas of those arrogant philosophers
who are not ashamed to put their own souls and dogs' souls on the same level,
and who pretended to have once been... bushes, and sea-fish... they show
themselves to have less sense than fishes." (Ibid.)
(Evolutionism has been around a long time...)
St. Augustine: "Some hold the same opinion regarding men that
they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been.... And when
they are asked, how,... they reply that most, if not all lands, were so
desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in
numbers, and... thus there was at intervals a new beginning made... But they say
what they think, not what they know. They are deceived... by those highly
mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years,
though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet
passed." (Ibid.)
Theophilus: "The world is not uncreated nor is there
spontaneous production of everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled;
instead the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made
everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to
those who wish to learn the truth.... The total number of years from the
creation of the world is 5,695." (Ibid.)
Josephus: "...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 made the beginning of light and the time of rest the Evening and the
Morning; and this was the first day..." (Davidheiser, p. 3)
St. Ambrose: "Scripture established a law that twenty-four
hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if
one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent... God
commanded that the heavens should come into existence, and it was done; He
determined that the earth should be created, and it was created... These things
were made in a moment." (Taylor & van Bebber, pp. 93-94)
Victorinus of Pettau: "even such is the rapidity of that
creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its
creationand which is called Genesis. God produced the entire mass for the
adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated and
bless it.... In the beginning God made the light, and divided it into the exact
measure of twelve hourse by day and by night." (Taylor & van
Bebber, p. 94)
Origen: "...this world had its beginning at a certain time, and
that agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its
past duration." (i.e., from the biblical chronologies) (Taylor &
van Bebber, p. 99)
Thus, even an old-earth professor at a historically
Christian college must admit: "In general, the church fathers regarded the
days of creation as ordinary days corresponding to our existing sun-measured,
solar days." (Davis Young of Calvin College, cited in Lavallee, p. iii.)
Sources:
Batten, Don, "Genesis Means What It Says: Basil (A.D. 329-379),"
Creation Ex
Nihilo 16(4): 23.
Davidheiser, Bolton, A Statement Concerning
the Ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross (Canoga Park, CA: Logos, 1993).
Lavallee,
Louis, "The Early Church Defended Creation Science,"
Impact #160.
Ross, Hugh, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), pp.
16-24.
Thompson, Bert, Compromises and Consequences: The Genesis
Account (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics
Press, 1995).
Van Bebber, Mark & Paul Taylor,
Creation
and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross
(Mesa, AR: Eden Communications, 1994), pp. 93-100.
2/18/97: Days and Years in Genesis 1:14
The days of Genesis 1:14
must be ordinary days (and the same for "years") or the verse would be
meaningless.
Source:
Whitcomb, John C., The Bible and
Astronomy (???), p. 21-22.
("7) Nothing is really gained by
lengthening the creation days to accommodate the evolutionary timetable of earth
history, for the revealed events are often in reverse order from that which
evolutionism requires (e.g. earth before sun; whales before land mammals; birds
before reptiles)."
"However, it [the Day-Age Theory] also shares one disadvantage with
the Gap Theory - indeed, it outdoes the Gap Theory in this particular: it rests
on very scanty exegetical evidence. The lexical exility on which it is based is
almost unbelievable; consequently, we must conclude that it springs from
presuppositions - a fact transparent even to the most casual reader."
Fields, Weston, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory
(Collinsville, IL: Burgener Enterprises, 1976), pp. 165-166.
Return to
Reason & Revelation
