But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8 (ESV)
At no time, therefore, had You not made anything, because You made time itself. And no times are co-eternal with You, because You remain forever; but should these continue, they would not be times. For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Augustine 400 AD
The words from Psalms 118:24 are sung as a chorus sung around the world: “This is the Day that the Lord hath made… I will rejoice and be glad in it.” The song expresses praise for God as the one who created our day. It is true whether we are speaking of the day at hand or the period of time that we live in. Genesis 1 describes creation in terms of a seven-day week. Did the writer intend to tell us that the universe was created in 144 hours (6 x 24)? Our experience is written in time. Time’s arrow goes one way and yet we can wonder with Augustine, what is time? How long were the days of Genesis?
Moses described events that took place before man existed. In his writing, he told the Jewish people that God Almighty alone created the universe. Nature was a creation of God, not actual gods such as the Egyptians claimed. It was created with order at the command of its creator. I suggest that the duration or time involved was not a major objective in the story. As in the last post of this set, following Vestal, I take this to be a “historical narrative in pictorial form. It abbreviates a long history and immense periods of time in language that translates history as well as transcends it”.
BTW, I will refer to Moses as the author. Considering the validity of this is a discussion for another day. In starting to understand what Moses meant, we need to understand what he meant when he said what is translated as “day” from the Hebrew word: yôm. It is wrong to just read an English translation and assume that we understand the text in detail. I wish that I could read and speak Hebrew language, especially the archaic form that Genesis is written in. I have proven several times that God has not gifted me with the ability to learn other languages. I have to settle for reading translations, commentaries and other experts. That is okay. Truth often requires search and work to discover and much good work is available for study.
What happens when there are multiple definitions to choose from? I suppose every language has words with multiple meanings. English sure does. If I see the word read, then is it as in to read a book or have you read a book. Phonetically, you could throw in reed or red. We use the context to guide us. Normally that provides all of the clarification needed, but not always. Do you want the right (correct) word or the right word (the word on the right)? Maybe we could count the uses of each meaning in the book and then use that percentage to guide us. Statistically that might work, but in fact, it is the immediate context that is relevant, even if in all of the other instances, it means a different meaning.
In Genesis 1, the word “day” is important and is the subject of much debate. What are the options? Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) described the answer in this way:
What does day mean in the days of creation? 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. In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11, 12, and 17 for such a usage. The simple fact is that day in Hebrew just as in English is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis. From the study of the word in Hebrew, it is not clear which way it is to be taken; it could be either way. (Schaeffer 1972)
Vines Dictionary of Old and New Testament words provides the following on the meaning for the Hebrew word used:
Yôm has several meanings. The word represents the period of “daylight” as contrasted with night time: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty- four hours: “And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day . . .” (Gen. 39:10). Yôm can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Gen. 2:3). In this verse, “day” refers to the entire period of God’s resting from creating this universe. This “day” began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [b yͤôm] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens . . .” Here “day” refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. (Vine, et al, 1985)
At least all Biblical scholars agree here. The word yôm can have three meanings. No problem, right? But which one is used for the seven days of creation? Virtually all Young Earth Creationist (YEC) authors recognize that the multiple meanings, yet they insist that the meaning is Genesis 1 absolutely must mean twenty-hour days. What is their basis? As stated earlier, such an interpretation follows from a simple direct reading of Genesis 1. Does that make this the correct interpretation? Is the simple direct reading always the best interpretation? Look at these two cases:
- A simple and direct reading of Genesis 3:1 leads many, many non-Christians to believe that Genesis has talking animals that try to lead people to astray. Most Bible scholars agree that this was Satan taking a disguise to beguile these people that God placed in this special place. This is an interpretation that involves bringing information from outside of Genesis to bear on the question. It is not the simplest reading.
- In Genesis 2:16–17, Genesis says “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:16–17). A simple, literal interpretation of this verse would dictate that on the twenty-four-hour day that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they should have died. The NIV translation translates this as “for when you eat of it you will surely die” but most translations including those by Genesis commentators. Wenham and Collins use the word day just as it was used in the KJV and ESV translations (Wenham 1987; Collins 2006). There are several different opinions from Christian commentators on how to interpret this verse but none would argue that the simple, obvious reading is the correct one. Many understand the death referred to as spiritual death and argue that Adam and Eve died immediately spiritually when they chose to disobey God. That is a very reasonable interpretation, but it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the author of the Torah used the word death in that sense anywhere else. It would even be difficult to demonstrate that use for the word death anywhere in the Old Testament. Another possible interpretation would be that Adam and Eve did literally physically die on the day that they sinned. However, the “day” was an indefinite period of time that began when they chose to reject God’s way.
Be careful before assuming the simple and direct option. There must be other clues to guide the interpretation. A simple and direct option should certainly be considered but it may take a bit of work to find the best answer.
We have three options to choose from. The immediate context is important. In the first 6 days, the text ends with “And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day.” Immediately this narrows the options. The case that the word “day” meant daylight vs night is pretty well ruled out. Whatever else is implied by that phrase, it serves as a transition to close out each day.
That leaves 2 options:
- Twenty-four hours
- Indeterminate period
I will examine these two options in some detail. A viable option should explain all of the evidence. The best option should fit best but it is pretty clear that not everyone will agree. That is okay. We are not saved by our view of the meaning of day in Genesis. Some interpretations expect Genesis 1 to be reflected in nature, provided that both the scripture and nature are interpreted correctly. Such views are known as “concordian” views. This is in contrast to who interpret Genesis less literally. I will summarize this and the options that I describe later in a chart.
Before looking at the options for yôm, I need to point out one more wrinkle that will come up as we go on. The first time a person reads Genesis for themselves, they are often surprised to discover that the book includes two creation accounts. How are they related? The first account is what I have focused on here: Gen 1:1 – Gen 2:3. It is the tightly written overview of the entire creation. The second account- Gen 2:4-25 is focused on Adam and Eve. The author did not explicitly link the two. How an interpreter connects the two also impacts how they interpret the days in Gen 1. In Gen 1:27, it tells us that male and female were created on day 6. In Gen 2:22, we see Eve being created. If these passages were recording the same event, then all of the Genesis 2 events had to have occurred during the first accounts day 6, regardless of what the word “day” means. That is not the only option as we will see later, but that can wait.
Looking at options, here are questions to consider for each:
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
iii. Can nature be explained with this view
iv. Do other references confirm this?
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
Any of the definition options that answer these questions adequately are viable. Below you will find a table where I list the two basic options and various views of creation espoused by Christians. It can seem strange that creation is explained so many different ways by Christians. It might be strange but is hardly unique. Just look at the number of denominations or views of the end times. In the table, I provide my own view of how adequate the answers are. The answers are colored in stoplight fashion. Green is good, adequate. Red is a no-go. Yellow is a caution but not clearly inadequate. If I view an option as having a red, then I do not see it as viable. If there are not red lights, then the option might be viable, but not necessarily the best answer. A few are colored light green. In such cases, I see them as green, but recognize the concerns from others. Following the table, I will briefly go through each of the options and look at the questions. I will reveal my current view at the end.
Option 1: Day is a 24-hour period
This sounds straightforward. An evening and a morning, a day. Simple reading. Among those who believe that Moses meant a 24-hour period, there are still different ideas about what that means in interpreting the verses. The fact that the author used a 24-hour day does not by itself tell us whether he was speaking literally or not, even in a historical narrative. For instance, when Jesus called Herod “that fox” (Lk 13:32), he didn’t think Herod had four legs and a long tail. He was using a figure of speech. Even if Moses used day as a 24-hour period even in a historical narrative, we still need to keep looking to understand.
Option 1a – 7 consecutive 24-hour days
In this option, God revealed to Moses that the earth and all of life was created over the course of six 24-hour human days. This was taught me in Sunday school. It is simple and easy to teach and preach. Here are the question response to consider about this view:
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
It is reasonable that the first readers could have assumed that yôm referred to a 24-hour day. An important part of the Mosaic law was the sabbath. If the Hebrew were expected to work for 6 days and rest for one, then it would not be surprising that they saw God as having done the same. The expression “evening and morning” would have helped.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
To answer this, we will look at more questions.
- Are there clues that suggest a different type of time period? What does the phrase: “there was evening and there was morning” mean? Evening refers to the beginning of the day as in the period right after sunset or in other words, twilight. Morning means sunrise or the period shortly afterward. The author could have said “there was night and day” but did not. If his words were English, he could be specifying just the night. In Leviticus 24:3, Aaron is ordered to tend the lamps of the tabernacle “from evening till morning, continually.” Evening till morning spoke of tending the lamps through the night. The order was given, not for one twenty-four-hour period, but for each night perpetually. In Exodus 18:13–14, the phrase morning till evening, occurs but in verse 14, it is not referring to one day: “The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, ‘What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?’” (Exod. 18:13–14) Perhaps the expression “there was evening and there was morning” did refer to one 24-hour period, but if that was his wish, the author had other options that would have been more specific.
- If the events of Gen 2 also occurred on day 6, then how could they have fit all within a 24-hour day? It is not a problem to expect God’s actions to take place at whatever pace He chose to use. When we begin to see human events, then we can expect humans to have limitations in the pace that they act. Adam was sinless, not Superman.
According to Genesis 2:19, God brought Adam “all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” to name. If “all” is literal and exhaustive, Adam must have been exhausted! From my standpoint, just being able to remember all those names would have been a miracle, especially if it all took place in one day. Adam noticed that there were male and female of all the animal kinds but none for him. Over some amount of time, he got lonely. Of course, if this took place in one day, then it didn’t take long. Even a simple reading suggests that day 6 was a longer period of time.
- How about the 7th day? The seventh day was certainly special. Authors at least since Augustine have noted that it does not close like the way the others do. As the Vines quote on yôm noted, God’s day of rest continues to the present. Hebrews 4:9-10 tells us that the rest continues. That means that neither the 6th nor 7th days really fit the 24-hour mold.
- If it didn’t rain on the day Adam was created, was that significant? Moses noted that God had not yet made it rain in verse 2:8. If this was still the 6th 24 period, then why would he call attention to it? John Collins (2006) shows that if the Hebrew is taken as it likely meant to the first readers, it is more logical to take this as occurring over a period of time that involved seasons.
If we consider the geography: God made the man in some unnamed “land” and then moved him to the garden of Eden (2:8); after the disobedience in Genesis 3, he banished the man back to the “land” to work it (3:23). It also helps to recall the climate of the western Levant: it rains in the fall and winter and not at all in the summer. At the end of the summer and with no man to work the ground (by irrigation), the ground is quite dry and barren after the rains begin to fall, then the plants may spring up. This makes sense, because the text gives a reason for no bush or small plant: “for the L___ God had not caused it to rain” (2:5); this is not at all the same as “he had not yet created them,” which is what Driver and Futato seem to require. Rather it is in terms of the ordinary experience of the Israelite audience. We are then able to understand just what Genesis 2:5–8 means in some land, at the end of the dry season, when the “mist” (or rain cloud) was rising to begin the rains, God formed the first man; he then planted a garden in Eden and moved the man there. Sometime after that he made the woman. (Collins 2006)
Again, it is important to recognize that we are reading an account written to ancient readers in an ancient language. The primary audience that the human author wrote to had a different mind-set and the author was not trying to address many of the questions that we ask today. Dr. Collins concluded on the basis of a careful analysis of the text in Genesis 1–3 that the text does not claim that the days are twenty-four hours long, partly in order to harmonize Genesis 1 and 2. My conclusion here is to say that the internal evidence demands or at least suggests that Gen. 1 does not show us creation over the course of six 24-hour human days.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
The scientific study of nature consistently reveals a long period of time, sometimes referred to as “deep time”. The fields of geology, physics and astronomy in particular show creation over the course of billions of years. The “Age of the Earth in Science” section of this website is discussing this in more detail. If the scientific data can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the 24-hour day creation in this view, it has not been shown so far. The young earth creation explanations to date are not viable.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
Most Biblical references to creation outside of Genesis do not refer to a timeframe and so are not helpful for this question. Some object that twenty-four-hour days are demanded by Exodus 20:11 which says, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Widely respected Hebrew scholar, Gleason Archer replied to this: “By no means does this [Exodus 20:9–11] demonstrate that twenty-four-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days,’ any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.” The description of creation in terms of six work periods and one of rest serves as a model for man regardless of whether the periods were 24-hours long or vastly longer.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
Does the author’s purpose change if the timeframe is not a human week long? God is still the creator. The contrast to the pagan gods is still stark. If one of his purposes had been to declare that God spoke the universe into existence over a very brief time, then this would change that, but otherwise all purposes seem intact. The universe exists because of the expression of God.. the Word. Jesus is the still the Word and the agent of creation.
I should mention one other possible scenario. If the author intended that the world was created in six 24-hour days, but that is impossible to reconcile with nature, then he was quite simply wrong. Many Christians do not have a problem with this. Their view is that scriptural errors with respect to science or history do not impact the spiritual value of scripture. Many non-Christians do not have a problem with this. Their view is that Genesis represents the Hebrew creation myth and while it has impacted history, it has no particular truth to it. If scripture is inerrant, then this is scenario is not true.
Both the analysis of scripture and nature challenge the interpretation that Genesis 1 demands that creation took place over one human week. This are just a few of the issues that come from forcing that interpretation into Genesis
Option 1b – non-literal or metaphorical
This option is that Moses wrote in terms of 24-hour days, but used the account, including “day”, non-literally. An example would be if the account was written as an illustration to show that God created everything but had no real intention of being specific. For instance, the account could have been an allegory designed to answer the theological issues without really addressing the specifics of how creation took place. Many Christians who believe in theistic evolution interpret Genesis 1 this way.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
John Walton claims that the Hebrew were interested in “functional origins, not material origins”. I think that he and others are quite correct that the original readers were very interested in the functions side and in the stark contrast to the polytheistic pagan religions around them. Whether or not they were also interested in material origins is another question. Their view of the cosmos was certainly different than ours. Many suggest that the Genesis creation account reflects that view and is prone to error because of it. They can say that the errors are not important because the account was never intended as literal.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
What in the immediate text would demand a 24-hour interpretation? What internal clues are best interpreted as allegorical or non-historical? In discussing option 1a, I pointed out several internal issues with considering the days as 24-hour days. These are concerns impact this view as well. If the events of the six days of creative activity cannot be reconciled with nature, then either they would be non-literal/allegorical or simply false. If, for instance, the text demands that the sun and moon were created long after the earth, that would be counter to any scenario we see as having occurred in nature. If the text were written as an allegory, then this would not be an issue. If however, the text can reasonably be reconciled with nature, then that is inconsistent with the allegorical view. The early Hebrews no doubt believed many things about cosmology and the heavens that we know are false today. Some believe that these false ideas drive the description of creation. I recognize that they had to have believed false things, but such ideas had remarkably little impact on the text. I consider this to be a result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the process.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
This option does not make predictions from the scripture about nature except to say that God created it. To the extent that nature is best explained by a creator, particular one with the character of God, nature can be considered consistent with this view.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
It is difficult to point to a particular verse that confirms or denies such an option. A concern is that given that both the first and second creation accounts were written as historical narratives and if they are taken as allegories, then can we be sure what was intended as allegory vs actual history? The creation account is referenced in Job, Psalms, Isaiah and Hebrews for example. It is simpler to see those as having referenced a literal event in Genesis. Some point out texts from the major prophets as examples of ancient cosmologies that are now disproven but these books were written long after Genesis. I consider them irrelevant to Moses writing in the Torah. The concern here is to interpret creation in Genesis, not how the much later books used the cosmology of their day.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
If the allegorical or non-literal interpretation is true, then it should have been the purpose of Moses to write it that way. He would have been using yôm as a tool in his writing, but not viewing it as either a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time. The writer could have had symbolic and archetypical purposes within it, but that would not preclude an additional literal meaning. Just as poetry can record real historical events, real historical events can be used to illustrate spiritual truths.
Option 1c – Non-consecutive days: Gap theory
One option would be that the 24-hour days were not consecutive… there were one or more gaps. There are a number of forms of this. The popular Scofield Reference Bible (1909) promoted the classic “gap theory”, proposing that the universe, including the world was created long ago as recorded in Genesis 1:1-2 and then Satan rebelled and the first creation was essentially destroyed. It was re-created as recorded in Gen 1:3f.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
It is difficult to see that the original readers would have recognized the need for the spiritual battle with Satan that is hypothesized to have resulted in the destruction of earth. The gap would not have been conceived by the original readers. If it is true, it would be a case where the Holy Spirit guided the author to write the text in such a way that this meaning would become meaningful later. We see this often in prophecy.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
The gap theory rests on the insertion of a gap and warfare between Gen 1:2 and the seven days of creation. It is not essential to put the gap, in either English or Hebrew. If the days of creation are taken as 24-hour days, then the concerns for day 6 and 7 from option 1a are still problems.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
The gap theory explains the idea that the world was destroyed by war with Satan. If the creation days are taken as 24-hour days thereafter, then one might see a destruction and then reappearance of life. I not seen any evidence a synchronous destruction and re-habitation of the planet. While this allows for any amount of geologic time, we have no real evidence to support the option. The order of events also should be consistent with scientific data or at least the data should be open to such an interpretation. If this occurred a few thousand years ago, then this does not fit.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
We do learn about Satan in heaven from Job and Ezekiel. We see a struggle with him in heaven in the book of Revelation, but they do not tell us when such a struggle took place. Perhaps there are analogous gap comparisons in the scripture, but none come to mind right now. Perhaps some of the visions in Revelations are somewhat similar, but apocalyptic literature is not really comparable.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
One would suspect that Moses would not have expected a long gap when he wrote Genesis 1. Satan is seen in the serpent in Genesis 3, but never is shown again in the Torah. Not a clear fit.
Option 1d – Non-consecutive days: Revelation Days
If the 24-hour days of Genesis 1 were not consecutive… there were one or more gaps. Perhaps the gaps were very long. The version, called “revelation days”, suggests that the universe was created by God over scientifically shown ages but revealed to man over the course of seven 24-hour days. Hence, the seven days are not consecutive days, but widely separated. The view was first presented by J.H. Kurtz in 1857 with similar ideas presented by others since then.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
Like the Gap theory, it is difficult to see that the original readers would have been conceived of this interpretation. If it is true, it would be a case where the Holy Spirit guided the author to write the text so that this meaning would become meaningful later.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
“Revelation days” is helped by the simple, general nature of the descriptions, though this by no means proves it is true. It does seem to balance the language that some insist demands a 24-hour day vs language that suggests a longer period of time.
Some YEC claim that the days of creation are ordinal days. Thus, days are the first, the second, the third… to the seventh days. They claim that as such they are definitely 24-hour days. That seems to be a smoke screen for several reasons. Hebrew experts all recognize that there is no rule in Hebrew demanding that they be days vs periods. The scripture has no other list of days to compare to, so there is no particular relevance to other scriptures as a basis. The wording for numbering the days does have significance though. The English translations of the Bible normally translate the Hebrew to say “the first day, the second day, the third day,” etc. A more literal translation would render these “one day,” “a second day,” “a third day,” “a fourth day,” “a fifth day,” “the sixth day,” and “the seventh day.” What difference does this make? Henry Lee Poe explains the significance:
The presence or absence of the definite article with the ordinal numeral and the
noun day makes an enormous difference in meaning. If I relate my life and how
I came to Union University, I might say,
One day I was born.
A second day I started preaching.
A third day I started being married to Mary Anne Whitten.
A fourth day I started being a father to Rebecca and then to Mary Ellen.
A fifth day I started living in Minnesota.
The sixth day I started working at Union.
The seventh day I die.
This narrative is true, and it captures the significant moments that began on particular days. The activity or state that begins on a particular day had not occurred previously, and it continues on into the future. So why does this narrative of my life use a definitive article for day six? The sixth day is the focus of activity in which I am now engaged. (Poe 2014)
This difference is more consistent with the revelation day scenario than either options 1a, 1b, or 1c.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
If God revealed creation through “revelation days’, this suggests that the course of creation should be found to have occurred in the order in Genesis. I will discuss this more under Option 2.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
Perhaps there are analogous comparisons in the scripture, but none come to mind right now. Perhaps some of the visions in Revelation are somewhat similar, but apocalyptic literature is not really comparable.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
One would suspect that Moses would not have expected a long gap or series of gaps. Otherwise, the main purposes are not impacted.
Option 1e – Young Biosphere Creation
Another spin, called “Young Biosphere Creation”, separates the first two verses, allowing millions or billions of years to pass and then to have the rest of the creation story take place a few thousand years ago. Seventh-day Adventist, Gorman Gray’s book, “The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?” (2000) describes this scenario.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
As with the “gap” theory, it is unlikely that the early readers would have interpreted a large gap between Genesis 1:3 and 1:4. They might not have cared however.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
Some commentators consider Genesis 1:1 to be a general overview statement, but most consider verses 1.2 and 1.3 to be part of Day one. The YBC position would be that it reports events before creation week. If the creation week is taken to be 24-hour days, then all of the issues on days 6 and 7 noted under option 1a apply here as well.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
Proponents of this option accept the strong evidence presented by astronomy and physics as applied to the vast reaches of space while rejecting science applied to the physics and geology here on the earth where we can touch and examine nature closely. Despite their denials, the option tries to accommodate the scientific evidence for the age of the earth in astronomy, but geologically has all of the weaknesses of classic YEC flood geology.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
This would be very similar to option 1a.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
This option has the earth sitting waiting on life for over 4 billion years. I don’t know of any theological or physical reason why this would have happened. Moses does not reveal any purpose for it. For this or any of the options, God certainly had the power to have done it this way, but the question is, did He chose this way? However, the author could have left out the details of a four billion year waiting period just because it didn’t help him in his purposes. His readers would not have needed those details until the last couple of centuries.
Option 1f – God’s realm vs earth
Mark Moore in “Early Genesis: The Revealed Cosmology” (2019) suggests an additional option. He points out that in physics, relativity makes time also relative. This time dilation makes it such that the relative time is very different between to people going at different speeds (really different speeds). In theory, this makes it possible that for instance a 24-hour day in God’s realm would be much longer in our slower realm. To be fair, Moore uses this as an option, not his confident opinion.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
I am pretty confident that few of the early Genesis readers were familiar with Einstein’s relativity. The details of how this worked would not have been available to them. However, the concept that God’s time could have been different than ours probably would not have shocked them. The details would not have been important to them.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
The idea that the days are in God’s time does not violate anything that I see. Moore sees God as giving his commands to nature that would then work out over earth’s time. No special problems seem to be created internally by this option.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
This option allows the events seen in nature to have occurred just as scientists see them. That is a real strength for the option. If in this option, God gives His commands that become reality on earth, then the order of events should be real. I will consider this aspect in more detail with Option 2. The concept of God as being in our space-time moving at a different speed seems to me as not consistent with how we should view God. God clearly is not physically located at any one point away from earth any more than His presence was limited to the temple in Jerusalem. However, the same contrast in God’s time vs our time is easily accomplished by him acting in a different space-time dimension from ours. Creation recorded in the Big Bang demands such a relationship. Our space-time-matter began at that point. God is outside of it. He could have spoken commands from his dimension over whatever time there that he chose and they would have occurred here at whatever rate He chose.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
Peter wrote: “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8 (ESV) That is consistent with this view, though not unique to it. His ways are inscrutable to us (Rom 11:33)
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
If this is option is true, God’s spirit led Moses write the creation account in the order it occurred, without knowing additional detail. Perhaps Moses was not aware or concerned about the time. He would have written in 24-hour days, though that would have happened in God’s time, not ours. The other purposes for the author would have be honored. The historical narrative would have been recording literal history.
Option 2: Day is an indefinite period
Sometimes someone will ask, “how is your day going?” If it has been a tough day, you might answer, “it has been a long day”. If the days of Genesis 1 are of an indefinite length, then these were really long days.. The first day was billions of years long. That was quite a day. If Moses did not intend to tell us how long the days were, then we have to look to other sources to learn that part of the story.
Option 2a – Day-Age model
If yôm means a period of time, perhaps the seven days of creation represented seven ages. The day-age model proposes just this. If the word- day is taken as an indefinite period, then the length of the periods is not constrained by the text. Scientific ideas may change but regardless of the duration, the validity of the proposal is not affected. The Holy Spirit led Moses to write that first creation account in terms of seven days. If those seven days are interpreted as seven literal periods of time of unspecified length, the text can be taken quite literal, if perhaps pictorial. Moses recorded events that were relevant to his first readers, but the Holy Spirit knew that the book would guide people for thousands of years. He could have led him to record the order that actually occurred, though some of this might not be recognized for a long time.
If God did not reveal creation to the author of Genesis directly, then where did the information that he wrote come from? One option is that though he was led by the Spirit, in human terms, he was simply re-casting the myths of the day in monotheistic, Yahweh-centric terms. The subject matter of ancient myths that have been discovered have similarities to Genesis, but the contrasts are too great to suggest Genesis 1 is related to any of them.
A key alternative is that God did reveal creation. Since Moses makes no claim about where he got his information, God could have revealed it to either Moses or perhaps an ancestor who then passed it down to Moses. If the Bible is considered the inerrant word of God, it has to be a very real option that God revealed real events of creation to the author either directly or indirectly. God did not just take the pen. The human author’s mind was engaged in the writing. Just God spoke directly through the prophets without losing the personality and vocabulary of the prophet, Genesis could have done the same through Moses. This would make the events narrated to be historical, chronological and described in a pictorial form that we must work to understand with humility, know that now we know in part.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
In general, I do not see that if Moses wrote in terms of periods of time, the original readers would have been disturbed. If, as John Walton says, the Hebrew were interested in “functional origins, not material origins”, the periods would provide function quite well. The problems recognized with regard to the length of the sixth and seventh days for option 1a go away with this option. For instance, the original readers could have understood that Adam was lonely for a mate for some time before God provided Eve. It would have seemed natural because yôm would have meant a period of time longer than one day. The pictures that God provided would have been meaningful for them and had additional meanings later.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
If yôm means a period of time, then it becomes easy to see how the events work. The phrase, evening and morning was a figure of speech that transitions between the periods of time.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
This option allows the days to be as long as God chose to make them. The scientific estimates of time provide numeric approximations. The simple word pictures of the events are focused on those meaningful to mankind then and through time. Some read the English in Genesis 1 and see huge conflicts with modern understanding of the cosmos and life’s history. If we understand that there are choices in how words are translated and that this tightly structured account is very careful in its choices of phrases, it is possible to resolve these at least tentatively. For instance, the account says that light is created on Day One, while the sun, moon and stars are not revealed until Day four. Not only is it difficult to understand light on earth without the sun, but modern science consistently reports that the sun and planets formed together. Can this be resolved? Here are points that show an option to correlate science and the Biblical account.
1. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the heavens and the earth. This expression to the Hebrew would have included the sun, moon and stars.
2. In Genesis 1:2, as the Spirit hovers over the waters, one thing it is showing is that the perspective for the rest of the account is from the earth’s surface. The description from that point reflects what an observer from the surface would see.
3. It is consistent with modern observations and models of planetary formation that earth’s atmosphere would have been first opaque, then translucent and eventually transparent.
4. The observation of light on earth’s surface reflects God’s action to make the atmosphere translucent.
5. The observation of the sun and moon on day 4 shows God’s action to make the atmosphere transparent. Many have noted that Gen. 1:16 says that God made the Sun and moon and stars but the wording is consistent with being a parenthetic note of a previous action.
Hugh Ross is perhaps the leading proponent of this view today. His books: “The Genesis Question” (1998) and “A Matter of Days” (2004) are excellent resources in understanding ways to harmonize the days of creation with science.
The overall flow from the creation of the heavens, to transforming the atmosphere, establishing a water cycle, plants to sea creatures, to birds, to land mammals, to man is consistent with our current view scientifically. Some say this is coincidence or that this interpretation has to push the text, but it seems very reasonable to me. No other ancient creation story comes even close to getting as correct.
A concern is often raised that if we interpret the days of Genesis 1 to match the current views of science, what will happen when science changes its mind? Science is revised over and over. Most of these are just refinements, but sometimes more major changes are made. Think about how much changed as a result of Einstein’s work. Tremendous new insights have resulted. However, Newton’s work is still true. Einstein’s work expanded Newtonian work. How about geology? The units that were mapped 200 years ago are still there. Fossils are often renamed and new species identified from specimens collected long before. The range of species can be expanded and relationships clarified, but this does not change the overall picture. I have two books written late in the 19th century by Christian geologists: “Nature and the Bible” by J.W. Dawson (1875) and “Creation, or the Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science” by James Dwight Dana (1885). These were two of the preeminent geologists of their day. Both espoused day-age interpretations of creation. Certainly, things that we have learned since their time would revise aspects of their views, but much would remain. In their day, the modern theory of the Big Bang was not available. We know more about the early history of earth. What might still change? We hear much about a multiverse, but regardless of what we theorize about this in the future, it appears very clear that our universe began at a single point in space-time. Details in correlations between the days of Genesis and scientific findings should always be considered tentative.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
The use of yôm as an indefinite period of time is common in Genesis and the rest of the OT. No other list of ages is available to compare to.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
Moses wrote to provide his people an explanation for who they were and that God had chosen them. Writing creation in a series of ages would not have affected this. If Moses had written what the Spirit led and viewed the days as 24-hour days but God intended them to reveal ages, that would also have been possible.
Option 2b – Progressive creation
Progressive creation describes a model where a key tenet is that major changes in lifeforms through geologic time appeared as a result of some form of God’s direct intervention. Proponents typically see God’s direct intervention, though still recognizing “natural” processes for most things. Days are generally seen as periods of time, similar to the day-age view.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
Ancient readers probably would have had no problem with the idea that nature included a combination of miracles and natural processes. Again, I do not see that if Moses wrote in terms of periods of time, the original readers would have been disturbed.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
Internally this seems consistent. For instance, in Gen. 1:24, the text says, “And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.” It does not say what that looked like. Both “natural” and “miraculous” interventions are God at work. The degree that God has chosen to use the miraculous is debated. Some Christians have difficulty believing that God ever chose to intervene that way. The Bible portrays miracles from cover to cover. Christians report God acting in miraculous ways today. I don’t see why the use of some miracles should be surprising.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
The understanding of many of the creation order issues in this view is usually very similar to that of the age-day view. Proving miraculous interventions is not possible, but God’s hand is clear.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
The idea of progressive miracles is consistent with God working miracles through the Bible.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
This is similar to the day-age, in that Moses would have been able to meet his purposes. Miraculous events are recorded throughout the Torah. Miracles through creation would not be inconsistent at all.
Option 2c – Framework
It is not obvious from the scientific record that the time since the Big Bang should be divided into seven particular periods, regardless of their extent. Why would God inspire Moses to divide creation into seven periods? The Mosaic law instructed God’s people to rest on the seventh day. This option is that the seven days of creation was God’s way of instructing His people to set aside a day each week for worship. What does it mean for God to rest? The sixth day ended with the creation of humans, male and female, ready for a relationship with Him. With that phase of creation done, God rested, ceasing that process. The seven days in Genesis 1 served as a framework through which God revealed creation and His work that led to man. It revealed that creation is God’s work and He is sovereign over it.
i. How would the original readers have looked at this option?
The original readers could certainly have understood this aspect of creation.
ii. Are the internal details of the days consistent with this view?
This seems a natural way to look at the internal evidence. Some argue that while the framework is valid, the events ran concurrently. Perhaps this could be explained as God initiating the key processes within various periods of time revealed as days, though not necessarily completing the work before the next day began.
iii. Can nature be explained with this view?
With no constraints on the length of the day, this fits the evidence. It does not dictate the manner that God chose to work in terms of “natural” vs. miraculous.
iv. Do other references confirm this?
I don’t know of any verses that conflict with it. Are there other instances where the framework is given, without many of the details? Perhaps in one sense, the ten commandments provided a framework for understanding how to please God. In terms of a historical narrative, the first creation account in Genesis is deliberately distinct.
v. How does this relate to the author’s purpose for the days?
Within the framework of the seven periods, whether the readers pictured 24-hour days or longer, Moses was able to provide God’s people a clear understanding God’s sovereignty over nature.
Conclusions:
By this time, have you figured out my view? I told you that some views seem to be inadequate from my perspective and I showed those in the table earlier. I am glad that I can fellowship and worship with believers who hold other views. Although each of the other views could be more correct, I view the best explanation to be a bit of an amalgamation. I take the division of creation into seven days to have been to set a framework for understanding creation in divisions that reflect how the Israelites (and Christians today, though less rigorously) were to divide their week. The seven days reflect seven periods of time of various durations. I think we can tentatively tie them to various dates based on our current understanding, though this will change somewhat as we learn more. I have no problem with there having been a limited number of times where God intervened, such as to create life or create man as a spiritual creation. That may not have involved miracles in the sense of the natural laws being completely set aside (such as in the waters of the Red Sea splitting) but may involve a series of highly improbable events occurring. Individually, they would have been improbable but not impossible, yet God might have made them occur. My view is concordian because I understand the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. Both the scriptural and natural records line up to declare the glory of God.
Archer, Gleason,1986. “A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Academie Books.
Collins, John, 2006. Genesis 1–4. Phillipsburg: P and R Publishing.
Dana, James Dwight, 1885. Creation, or the Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science in Bibliotheca Sacra 42 p. 201-24.
Dawson, J.W., 1875. Nature and the Bible: A Course of Lectures. Cambridge, John Wilson & Son
Gray, Gorman, 2000. “The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?”
Kurtz, J.H., 1857. Bible and Astronomy, Philadelphia, Lindsay & Blakiston.
Moore, Mark, 2019. “Early Genesis: The Revealed Cosmology”, The Ridge Enterprise Group.
Poe, Henry Lee. 2014. “The English Bible and the Days of Creation: When Tradition Conflicts with Text”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 130–139.
Ross, Hugh, 1998. The Genesis Question. Colorado Springs: Navpress.
_____________, 2004. “A Matter of Days” Colorado Springs: Navpress.
Schaeffer, Francis, 1972. Genesis in Space and Time. Glendale: Regal Books.
Vestal, Daniel, 1989. The Doctrine of Creation. Nashville: Convention Press.
Vine, W., Unger, M., and White, W. J., 1985. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Wenham, Gordon. 1987. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 1; Genesis 1–15. Waco: Word Books.
Recent Comments