Post Author: Bill Pratt 

In this series of posts, we are looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word yom as it is used in the first chapter of Genesis.  Does yom refer to a 24-hour day or to a long period of time?

Today we will review two final arguments from young earth creationists who assert that the 24-hour “day” is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1.  Again, we will use material from Norman Geisler’s systematic theology, volume 2.

First, young earth creationists accuse old earth creationists of actively supporting Darwinian evolution by interpreting long periods of time in Genesis.

It is well known that the theory of evolution (or common ancestry) depends on very long periods of time for life to develop from a one-celled animal to human beings. Without these long periods of time, evolution would not be possible. Thus, it is argued by young-earthers that granting long periods of time is an accommodation to evolution.

This is an important argument that persuades many Christians, so how would old earth creationists respond?

 In response to this charge, it must be observed that allowing for long periods of time for the development of life came long before the idea of evolution. Augustine (354–430), for one, held to long periods of time for the development of life (CG, 11.6).  Also, even in modern times, scientists had concluded that long periods of time were involved before Darwin wrote in 1859.  Furthermore, long periods of time do not help evolution, since without intelligent intervention, more time does not produce the specified complexity involved in life. Natural laws randomize, not specify. For example, dropping red, white, and blue bags of confetti from a plane at 1,000 feet in the air will never produce an American flag on the ground. Giving it more time to fall by dropping it at 10,000 feet will diffuse it even more.

The truth is that old earth creationists challenge the ideas of Darwinian evolution just as much as young earth creationists.  Neither group believes that evolution, alone, can explain how all of the diverse plant and animal species arrived on earth.  Both sides believe that evolution can explain limited change within species, but above the species level the evidence thins out rapidly.

Here is one final argument for the 24-hour “day” view.

Mark 10:6 affirms that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning.  According to this text, “At the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’”  If God created humankind at the beginning of Creation, then they were not created at the end of millions of years, as the old-earth view contends.

The response is fairly straightforward:

First, Adam was not created at the beginning but at the end of the creation period (on the sixth day), no matter how long or short the days were.
Second, the Greek word for “create” (ktisis) can and sometimes does mean “institution” or “ordinance” (cf. 1 Peter 2:13).  Since Jesus is speaking of the institution of marriage in Mark 10:6, it could mean “from the beginning of the institution of marriage.”
Third, and finally, even if Mark 10:6 is speaking of the original creation events, it does not mean there could not have been a long period of time involved in those creative events.

Thus concludes an introduction to some of the most popular young earth arguments and responses to them.  In future posts, we will look at further lines of evidence from the old earth creation side.  There is much more to be said about the old earth view, and considering that this view is rarely heard within the evangelical community, we should study them here.

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Today we continue looking at arguments for a 24-hour view of the “days” in Genesis and arguments for a longer period of time.  Again, we will be using Norm Geisler’s treatment of the issue.

A seemingly persuasive argument for the 24-hour view is the comparison in Exodus 20:11 of the six-day work week to the six “days” of creation.  Here is the argument briefly stated:

According to the law of Moses (Ex. 20:11), the Jewish workweek (Sunday through Friday) was to be followed by a day of rest on Saturday, just as God had done in His “six-day week” of creation.  The Jewish workweek refers to six successive twenty-four-hour-days. This being the case, it seems that the creation week, like the workweek, was only 144 hours long.

Dr. Geisler addresses this argument in the following way:

It is true that the creation week is compared with a workweek (Ex. 20:11); however, it is not uncommon in the Old Testament to make unit-to-unit comparisons rather than minute-for-minute ones. For example, God appointed forty years of wandering for forty days of disobedience (Num. 14:34). And, in Daniel 9, 490 days equals 490 years (cf. 9:24–27). What is more, we know the seventh day is more than twenty-four hours, since according to Hebrews 4 the seventh day is still going on. Genesis says that “on the seventh day [God] rested” (Gen. 2:2), but Hebrews informs us that God is still in that Sabbath rest into which He entered after He created: “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10).

The next argument for 24-hour “days” in Genesis has to do with the creation of light on the fourth day.

Young-earthers claim that according to Genesis 1, light was not made until the fourth day (v. 14), but there was life on the third day (v. 1:11–13). However, life on earth cannot exist for millions (or even thousands) of years without light; thus, the “days” must not have been long periods of time.

As Dr. Geisler points out, there are several possible responses to this argument:

Light was not created on the fourth day, as defenders of the solar day argue; rather, it was made on the very first day when God said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). As to why there was light on the first day when the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there are various possibilities. Some scholars have noted a parallelism between the first three days (light, water, and land—all empty) and the second three days (light, water, and land—all filled with bodies). This may indicate a parallelism in which the first and fourth days cover the same period, in which case the sun existed from the beginning.

Others have pointed out that while the sun was created on the first day, it did not appear until the fourth day. Perhaps this was due to a vapor cloud that allowed light through, but not the distinct shape of the heavenly bodies from which the light emanated.

An additional point can be made about the fourth day.  According to young-earth creationists, the sun was not created until the fourth day, but there could be no 24-hour solar days for the first three “days” of Genesis without the sun.  After all, the sun is what gives the earth a 24-hour cycle.  Without the sun, it seems nonsensical to call the first three “days” solar days.

As we look at each of the arguments for 24-hour “days” in Genesis, they may seem convincing at first.  After reading the responses to these arguments, they are not as persuasive.  As I said in an earlier post, interpreting these verses in Genesis is not easy, but we should still keep trying to find the truth, even if it is difficult.  There are still a few more common arguments made by young-earth creationists that we need to review.  We will do that next.