The Six Days of Creation: A Defense of the More Traditional Reading

Posted by deangonzales on November 4, 2009

I think most of my readers are committed to the belief that the Scriptures cannot err because they are the infallible word of God. But I hope we’re also honest enough to admit that our interpretations of Scripture can sometimes be wrong. Therefore, as I noted earlier, it is not always wrong for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis of the Genesis 1 “creation week.” Some Bible scholars have felt constrained by the claims of modern science to reformulate their reading of the creation week and to offer alternative interpretations that allow for a much greater span of time than that permitted by the more traditional six-day framework. We surveyed these modern alternatives in Part 1 of this series.

In my estimation, however, I am not convinced that scientific evidence for an old earth and universe is conclusive. For one thing, history has often witnessed the modification or replacement of older scientific hypotheses with newer ones. The geocentric view of the solar system, which was popularized by the Greek mathematician Ptolemy and endorsed by the early and medieval church, gave way to the heliocentric view advanced by Copernicus. The presuppositions of Newtonian physics had to be significantly modified when Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity gained credibility. My point is that we should not feel constrained to embrace scientific theories about the age of the earth and the universe that are relatively recent and possibly subject to revision as more data is collected in the future. Moreover, many of the modern claims of science regarding the age of the earth and the universe are interpretations of empirical data, which in turn are based upon the faulty presuppositions of an absolute uniformitarianism and a materialistic evolution. In contrast, many Christian scientists who are committed to the authority of Scripture have offered alternative interpretations to the empirical data that suggest a much younger earth and universe. And while it’s possible to get in a spaceship and confirm Copernicus’ view of a heliocentric solar system, it’s not possible to climb into a time machine in order to verify empirically the age of the earth and universe.

In summary, after reviewing the teaching of Scripture in the light of scientific claims, I have found no compelling reason from Scripture or from science to reject the traditional view of six days of Genesis 1. Indeed, I believe the biblical evidence favors the more traditional interpretation of Genesis 1. The following six considerations support the traditional view of the creation account in which God created the universe in a period of time corresponding to six 24-hour days.¹

1. The first chapters of Genesis are real history.

Advocates of the Mythological view deny that the early chapters of Genesis (usually 1-11) furnish us with a real historical account of origins. And even though Literary Framework advocates will refers to the early chapters of Genesis as “Primeval History,” some of them flatly reject the historicity of these chapters. For example, Howard Van Till, whom I cited in Part 1 of this series as a Literary Framework advocate, writes,

When we Westerners read a story, we expect it to be written as an answer to the question “What happened?” But the stores of primeval history are more like parables than like journalistic reports of events. They illustrate the identity and character and status of God, human­ity, and nature. They were never intended to answer questions about precisely what happened…. In typically Eastern fashion, primeval history answers these questions with illustrative stories that share many features with the parables we find elsewhere in Scripture.²

Let me illustrate Van Till’s point: Jesus told a story in the gospels about a man who had 100 sheep, but then lost one. So great did the man love each individual sheep that he left the ninety and nine sheep in the open pasture in order to search for the one lost sheep until he found it. Now did that really happen? Was Jesus describing a real historical event? Most commentators concede that Jesus was probably just telling a story as an illustration of spiritual truth.

That’s what Dr. Van Till believes Moses is doing in Genesis one. Moses is just telling us a story. Thus, Van Till goes on to argue: “The days of the Genesis 1 have nothing to do with the cosmic timetable; they are simply literary devices in the story, not actual temporal intervals directly corresponding to events in cosmic history.”³ If Van Till is correct and these chapters are not dealing with real history, then it makes no difference whether six literal 24-hour days are given. History is not the point. The spiritual truths contained in the passage are the important point. Is this the way we should interpret the Genesis creation account?

There are good reasons, however, for treating the early chapters of Genesis, including chapter one, as real history. To begin with, the early chapters of Genesis contain the kind of language and sentence structure that characterizes straightforward, though highly stylized, historical narrative. Very little poetry is found in the text of Genesis 1-11.⁴ Moreover, the language of these chapters is predominantly literal and not figurative. The references to land, sea, sky, stars, grass, trees, birds, fish, and animals are all literal. More importantly, the narrator actually identifies several geographical referents⁵ and persons by name,⁶ which is not the usual custom of parable.⁷ Furthermore, the Hebrew language employs a particular kind of sentence structure for historical narrative, which predominates not only the historical books of the OT, such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, but also the book of Genesis, beginning with Genesis chapter one.⁸

Second, the early chapters of Genesis are inseparably linked with the other historical narratives of Genesis. Beginning at chapter 12 and reading the text backwards, one may trace the ancestral line­age of the patriarch Abraham to Terah (11:27-32), then further back to Shem (11:10-26), and eventually to Noah (10:1). Proceeding to chapter 5, one finds Adam at the root of Noah’s family tree (5:3). And who was Adam’s father? According to the immediately preceding verse, Adam was created by a direct act of God (5:1-2). And Moses provides a description of Adam’s creation in 2:4a which begins with the introduction: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”⁹ The Hebrew phrase translated “these are generations” (‘elleh toledot) or its close equivalent occurs ten other times in the book of Genesis and three times elsewhere.¹⁰ In each case the phrase introduces either a genealogical list or a historical account,¹¹ and in none of the Old Testament references outside primeval history does the phrase ever preface a non-historical account. Thus, its function in Genesis 2:4 is not to point backward to the Genesis 1 creation account but to point forward to the subsequent history of creation, beginning with Adam, and to mark that narrative as real history. Indeed, the repeated use of the phrase throughout the book of Genesis serves to bind all the narratives together as one historical corpus of literature.¹² Even a critical scholar like Claus Westermann is forced to acknowledge this point and remarks,

What is peculiar to the biblical primeval story is that it links the account of the primeval period with history. Both J and P prefix the primeval story to a history which begins with the call of Abraham. The transition from one to the other is smooth, and herein lies the key to their meaning for Israel. The whole of the primeval story is thereby freed from the realm of myth.¹³

Indeed, the historicity of Adam and Abraham are inseparably linked to the historicity of Jesus Christ. Especially relevant are the genealo­gies of the chronicler (1 Chronicles 1-9)¹⁴ and Luke who both treat Adam as the historical progenitor of the promised “seed,” whom Luke identifies as Christ (Luke 3:23-38). If one yanks the thread of primeval narrative from the cloth of history, he runs the risk of unraveling the entire garment of redemptive history and under­mining the gospel.¹⁵ The testimony of Psalm 136 is also important as the psalmist extols God’s mighty deeds in the historical context of the Exodus (vv. 10-15), the Wilderness (v. 16), the Conquest of Canaan (vv. 17-22), and his own day (vv. 23-25), and he links them with God’s mighty acts in Creation (vv. 5-9), drawing from the very language and sequence of the Genesis creation account.¹⁶

Third, Jesus and the Apostles treat the early chapters of Genesis as historical.¹⁷ Of special interest is Paul’s use of the Genesis two account of Adam and Eve’s creation to support male-headship in 2 Timothy 2:13: “For it was Adam who was first (protos) created, and then (eita) Eve” (emphasis mine). Contrary to the Literary Framework interpreters, Paul appears to interpret the Genesis creation account chronologically! In light of these considerations, we who believe in the inspiration of Scripture cannot adopt any view that denies or down­plays the historicity of the Genesis creation account.¹⁸ The Genesis creation account is not Moses’ version of Aesop’s fables. It is not just a nice bedtime story. If it the story of creation is fable and a lot of wrapping paper which we can discard, as Dr. Van Till claims, then what should we think about other Biblical teachings that find their roots in the first chapters of Genesis?

Take, for example, marriage. When Christ or the apostles are talking about marriage, or divorce, or the woman’s role in marriage, where is their doctrine grounded? Their doctrine is grounded in something God did in time-space history. God actu­ally created a man whom He named Adam and a woman to be his helper, whom Adam named Eve. That really happened! And because God really did create one man and one woman in time-space history, then polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, and feminism are wrong. But if we do away with the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, then we are left with a story of events that did not really happen the way they are told. We are left without a foundation for monogamous marriage. What about sin? Is sin just a genetic defect? Is sin merely some kind of animal mechanism? Or does sinful human behavior stem from a real historical fall? Was there a real Devil who tempted mankind to rebel against God? Was there a real historical Adam and was there a real Eve who took the forbidden fruit and sinned against God? Was Paul referring to historical events when he wrote in Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous”? If Adam’s fall was just a myth or story, then what does that say about Jesus’ death on the cross? What about human death? Is human death purely natural? According to evolution it is. In fact, in evolution death means pro­gress, and therefore death is something good. It is a means by which the human species evolves into something better. But that’s not what the third chapter of Genesis teaches us. The third chapter of Genesis links death to a point in history when man rebelled against God and when God pronounced a curse upon man. The point I am trying to underscore is that many important doctrines in our Bible rest upon the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. If we are to give a solid Biblical answer to such issues as pornography, homosexuality, feminism, racism, euthanasia, and divorce, then we must zealously guard the historical foundation upon which the rest of the Bible answers those questions. For “if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

2. The six days of Genesis 1 most likely convey a chronological and not merely a topical structure.

Not everyone who espouses the Literary Framework view denies the historical character of Genesis 1. For example, writers like Meredith Kline and Lee Irons strongly affirm that Genesis 1 describes real events that took place in time-space history. They insist, however, that the narrative structure is not chronological but topical in character. For example, they highlight an apparent symmetry between the first three days and the last three days. Day One, which describes the separation of light and darkness, corresponds to Day Four, which describes the light bearers, the sun, moon, and stars. Day Two, which describes the sea and the sky, corresponds to Day Five, which describes the creation of sea creatures and winged creatures. Day Three, which describes the separation of land from water and the sprouting of vegetation, corresponds to Day Six, which describes the creation of land ani­mals and mankind. To summarize, the first three days describe realms or kingdoms, whereas the last three days describe inhabitants or rulers. The following table should help to illustrate this literary structure:¹⁹

Others have proposed a similar scheme, viewing the first three days as God’s response to the earth’s “formless” condition and the last three days as God’s response to the earth’s “empty” condition (Gen. 1:2).²⁰ It seems clear that there is a parallel literary structure in the text. But there are several reasons for interpreting the narrative Genesis 1 chronologically, despite the presence of literary parallelism. To begin with, the presence of a carefully crafted literary parallelism need not preclude chronological sequence. In fact, the entire narrative of Genesis is replete with examples of literary parallelism that in no way compromises or precludes chronological sequence. For example, the obvious chiastic parallelism of the Tower of Babel narrative in no way precludes chronological sequence:

Other examples could be cited.²¹ As one critic of the Literary Framework view has observed,

What difficulty would it be for [the Author of the Universe] to cause the most complex, refined literary form to coincide with the very way in which He Himself created all things in six days? Artistic form is in no sense opposed to an actual relation of facts, especially since the Author of the account is none less than the actual Creator of the facts which are described in that account.²²

So the mere fact that there is a literary structure and parallelism in the text does not ipso facto rule out the possibility of chronological sequence. Moreover, if Moses only desired to convey non-chronological information, then why did he bother to present that non-chronological information in the language of six successive days? Presenting God’s creative activity in terms of six successive days gives the natural impression of historical sequence. Derek Kidner has noted this point when he writes, “To the present writer the march of days is too majestic a progress to carry no implication of ordered sequence.”²³ Finally, the narrative employs the kind of sentence structure that normally characterizes historical sequence.²⁴ Therefore, despite the undeniable literary parallelism of Genesis 1, there is no good linguistic reason for denying the apparent historical sequence of the text.²⁵

3. The six successive “days” of Genesis 1 most likely correspond to six 24-hour days.

In chapter one of Genesis, the Bible describes each of the six units of time in which God created the heavens and the earth as a yom [יום] (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The question we need to answer is: What does the Hebrew word yom means in this passage? If we were to consult a standard Hebrew lexicon, we would discover that the term yom is primarily used to designate a 24-hour solar day. However, we would also discover some other usages as well. The term can also refer to daytime as opposed to nighttime or to an indefinite period of time. In fact, both of these secondary usages are found in the creation account: “daytime” (Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18) and “a period of time” (Gen 2:4). This last reference speaks of “the day” in which “the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Obviously, in this verse the word “day” is referring to a period of time longer than just 24 hours.

That brings us to six yoms of Genesis one. Those who advocate the “Day-Age” view argue that the six yoms of Genesis 1 are just like the yom in Genesis 2:4. They’ַre referring to indefinite periods of time, i.e., “ages.” “If the term yom means more than 24 hours in 2:4,” they argue, “then why can’t it mean more than 24 hours in chapter one?” That’s a good question, and it deserves a good answer. I offer the following response:²⁶

Since the primary meaning of yom is a full day of 24 hours, then we should interpret the yoms of Genesis 1 as such unless something in the context indicates otherwise (as in the case of Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18 and Gen 2:4).²⁷ If we examine the context of Genesis one, we find a recurring phrase that helps us determine what Moses intended by the six days of creation. The phrase “evening and morning” occurs just prior to each of the creative yoms (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). If each of the six creative days are made up of two phases—evening and morning—then it seems highly probable that Moses is referring to a unit of time that corresponds in terms of length to a 24-hour solar day.²⁸ Even the Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist James Barr, who is no friend to fundamentalism, concurs when he writes,

So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers … that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.²⁹

Moreover, as far as I can tell, whenever the word yom is used with an ordinal number, such as “first”, “second,” “third,” etc., it designates a 24-hour day (cf. Exod. 12:15, 16, 18; 16:22, 29; 24:16; Lev 7:17, 18; 12:3; Num 19:12, 19; Josh 6:4, 15; Judg. 19:8; etc.). ³⁰ Furthermore, if an indefinite period of time were intended, the author of Genesis could have used the common Hebrew word for age, namely, ‘olam (“age”). Finally, if we still have any doubt, Moses provides us with an interpretation of the six days of creation in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-17:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the chil­dren of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath through­out their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

These passages are difficult to harmonize with the Day-Age Revelatory-Day views. To begin with, notice that God commands the Israelites to structure their life according to the pattern that He established at creation: six days of labor; one day of rest.³¹ Because man is the image of God, his pattern of labor and rest is to resemble God’s pattern of labor and rest. And contrary to the Day-Age view, that pattern is not six ages consisting of millions of years followed by a seventh age. Rather, God by His own example instituted the seven-day week at creation.³² Furthermore, these texts in Exodus do not teach us that God “revealed” His creative activity in six days. Rather, they clearly state that God “made” (‘asah) the world in six days, employing the same word used in Genesis for God’s creative activity (1:7, 25, 26, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 18).³³

4. God’s creative activity described in Genesis 1:1 is not distinct from God’s creative activity in Genesis 1:2-31.

Verse one gives us the scope of God’s creative activity: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” We can interpret the phrase “the heavens and the earth” as a literary device (merismus) referring to the entire universe. Or we can interpret as referring to both the spiritual world (‘the heavens’) as well as the material world (‘the earth’). In either case, it’s referring to the whole of created reality. Then verses 2 through 31 describe the six-day creative process whereby God takes the raw materials He has created ex nihilo (v. 1; cf. Heb. 11:3) and fashions them into an orderly and beautiful world. The reference to the dividing of light from darkness (v. 4), the dividing of the waters (v. 6), the formation of continents and seas (vv. 9-10), the placement of heavenly bodies (vv. 14-18), and the creation of animals and human beings (vv. 24-28) certainly gives the impression of a worldwide creation rather than a mere localized creation. God is not merely creating the Land of Eden. He is forming the entire earth. The worldwide scope of this account is further confirmed by the fact that author attributes the creative activity to Elohim rather than to Yahweh-Elohim.³⁴ The name Yahweh is reserved for chapter two when Moses does narrow his focus to the Land of Eden. Therefore, I find no support in Genesis 1 for the Limited Geography view.³⁵

What of the Gap theory? Advocates of the Gap theory argue that we should see two distinct creations in Genesis one with an indefinite gap of time in between. Genesis 1:1 refers to an original creation. But that original creation came under divine judgment, which they believe is alluded to in verse two. They point out that the phrase “formless and void” (tohu wabohu) is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe a land under divine judgment (Jer 4:23, 26-28). For that reason, they translate verse two, “But the earth became formless and void [emphasis added].”³⁶ Sometime after this judgment, they argue, God began to recreate the world again (vv. 3-31).

In response to this view, the following points should be noted. First, the phrase translated “formless and void” means nothing more and nothing less than simply “formless and empty.” As such, it may describe a once civilized land that became a desolate wilderness by means of divine judgment (Jer. 4:23). But it may also describe a newly created earth that was about to be fashioned and populated by the creative power of God (Gen. 1:2). Second, the translation of verse 2—“But the earth became”—and the translation of verse 3—“replenish the earth”—do not accurately convey the Hebrew words and syntax. Third, if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until verses 14-19, then the Gap theory would require the existence of a previous world without sun, moon, and stars, which is very unlikely! In conclusion, it seems the Gap theory and the Limited Geography views are classic examples of reading ideas into a passage (eisegesis), rather than deriving them out of a passage (exegesis).

5. The Genesis creation account is neither primitive science nor modern science. It is God-breathed, supernatural science!

Webster’s dictionary defines the human endeavor of “science” as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.” A secondary definition given is “knowledge, esp. that gained through experience.”³⁷ If Webster’s Dictionary has accurately defined the human endeavor of science, then such an endeavor by itself can tell us nothing about the origin of the world and mankind for the simple reason that no human being was present “in the beginning” to observe and experience creation! As Herman Bavinck rightly observes,

The question as to the origin of things, of man and animal and plant, and of the whole world, is an old question, but it always remains an appropriate one. Science can supply no answer to it. Science is itself a creature and product of time. It takes its position on the basis of things it investigates; from the nature of the case, therefore, science cannot penetrate to the moment when they were given reality.³⁸

There is One, however, who can “penetrate to the moment” of creation. The Creator Himself was present, and He has furnished us with an “eyewitness account” of His supernatural creative activity. Thus, it is inappropriate to speak of Genesis one as “primitive science” or “modern science.” I prefer not to refer to Genesis one as “scientific” at all since there was no human observer.³⁹ But if one insists that the Genesis 1 creation account is scientific, then he must think of it as divinely revealed science.

6. Some of the claims of modern science regarding the great age of the universe are based upon faulty assump­tions and are therefore unreliable.

Modern methods for dating the universe are often based upon uniformitarian and evolutionary assumptions. Absolute uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes operating today have been operating at the same rate in the past. Materialistic evolution assumes a natural origin and gradual development for creation. Both of these assumptions are unproven and contradict the teaching of Scripture. According to Scripture, God supernaturally created the universe out of nothing. Moreover, creation by its very nature requires some appearance of age.⁴⁰ Furthermore, if the catastrophe of a worldwide flood disrupted the natural order, then attempts to date the earth based on the current rate of natural processes would seem questionable.

This is not to deny that there are scientific claims that are difficult to harmonize with a young earth. Nor do I intend to imply that any Christian who believes in an old universe also embraces absolute uniformitarianism or materialistic evolution. In fact, there are a number of Christian scientists who completely reject the doctrine of evolution but still believe in an old earth on the basis of their interpretation of astronomical and geological evidence. Nevertheless, it is my conviction that we should embrace the most natural reading of the biblical text until there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that constrains a different interpretation. In the end, we may discover that it was not Christians who needed to modify their interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we may learn that it was the modern scientists who needed to modify their dating methods based on the teaching of Scripture.

In summary, I find no compelling reason from Scripture or from science to reject the traditional view of six days of Genesis one. It seems to me that the most responsible interpretation of Genesis 1 reads the six days of creation as a timeframe corresponding to six 24-hour days.

Concluding Applications

In closing, I’d like to highlight several practical lessons that we might draw from our consideration of the creation week of Genesis 1.

(1) Although science may prompt us to reexamine traditional interpretations of Scripture, we must never allow science to be the final authority in interpreting the Bible.

Some discoveries in modern science may inform our interpretation, but they should never be made the ultimate basis or authority for our interpretation. The London Baptist Confession teaches in chapter one, paragraph ten:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but he Holy Scripture deliv­ered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

So when modern science tells us the traditional interpretation of Genesis one is wrong, we should not unquestionably submit to these claims. We may examine the passage again in light of the claims of modern science. But we must let the Scripture be our ultimate guide.

(2) We must approach the claims of modern science critically and biblically.

An increasing number of scientists today are writing books refuting the theory of naturalistic macro-evolution.⁴¹ In light of these attacks, some evolutionists are beginning to concede the lack of evidence for their theory. For example, one evolutionist has made the following concession.

It should be noted at the outset that substantial fossil remains are known for all the species listed below [monkeys], but that there is vir­tually no fossil evidence relating to human evolution, other than a few fragments of dubious affinities…. The preceding period of human evo­lution therefore remains a complete mystery and an unfortunate major gap exists whatever view one takes of the time of divergence of homi­nids and great apes.⁴²

Let it be fixed in our minds, there is no conclusive evidence for macro-evolution. In my opinion, so-called theistic evolution is an oxymoron.⁴³

But what about the alleged “evidence” for an old earth and universe? Evolution may only be a theory, but has not the great age of the earth and universe been proven as a fact? Isn’t there geological evidence for an old earth? And don’t the immense size of the universe together with the speed of light suggest a creation much older than several thousand years? Perhaps. But there may be other valid explanations for the apparently great age of the earth. First of all, God’s original creation would have appeared older than it really was. If you and I were transported back in time to the sixth day of creation, the earth would have appeared much older than a few days. Adam and Eve would have appeared to be grown adults, not tiny zygotes or fetuses. In reality, they were only a day old. But in appearance, they looked to be in their twenties or thirties. Thus, the appearance of an old universe does not prove an old universe.⁴⁴ Furthermore, biblical creationist scientists have suggested many other scientific models that harmonize the scientific evidence with the teaching of Scripture.⁴⁵ The bottom line is that we should not simply swallow the claims of modern scientists. We should assess them critically and biblically.

(3) We must beware of equating any scientific theory even if proposed by a creationist with the teaching of Scripture.

As I indicated above, many Bible-believing scientists have proposed various scientific theories that seek to harmonize the teaching of Scripture with what we know from modern science. For example, some creationists account for the volume of water it took to cover the world with a universal flood by positing a pre-flood canopy of water that was in the atmosphere above the earth.⁴⁶ But another creationist has recently rejected this theory and suggested that the waters came from an underground cavern beneath the crust of the earth.⁴⁷ Who is correct? They both may be partially correct. Neither may be correct. Or one may be right and the other wrong. But the Bible does not demand that we take sides. The Bible teaches that there was a flood. The Bible speaks of rain from heaven and it also speaks of the fountains of the deep. But it does not provide us with much more detail regarding the origin of the floodwaters.

Based upon what we know of the speed of light, modern scientists argue that the starlight we presently see must have originated millions and billions of years ago. However, creationist scientists have proposed other theories to account for account for starlight and a relatively young universe. Astronomer Barry Setterfield argues that light used to travel much faster when the universe was created than it does today based on a series of historical measurements of the speed of light that seem to indicate a decrease of velocity over time.⁴⁸ Dr. D. Russell Humphreys takes a slightly different approach and argues that time itself is not constant in relation to one’s position in the universe.⁴⁹ These theories about varying speed of light or relativity of time may prove to be true. But they are just theories. It is not necessarily the teaching of Scripture. The Bible does provide us with information about the speed of light or rate of time at different points in the universe. Therefore, we must be careful not to equate any scientific theory with the teaching of Scripture, even when a Bible-believing scholar proposes that theory. It was not the Christian church that first expounded the view that the earth was the center of the solar system. Claudius Ptolemaeus, a 2nd century mathematician and astronomer first systematically expounded that view. But the Christian church made the fatal mistake of equating the Ptolemaic view with Scripture. We must avoid that mistake.

(4) We should beware our interpretation of Scripture is not motivated ultimately by a desire to please men but by a desire to please God.

Many evangelicals believe the view we have just espoused hinders our witness to the modern scientific community. For example, Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer and advocate of the Day-Age view, writes

I see the community of scientists, including astronomers and astro­physicists, as an ethnos. God calls us to reach out to them as He does to every other group on the planet. And though He warns that the child­like simplicity of trusting Jesus will be a stumbling block for many, we have unwittingly placed another barrier in their path; the dogma of a few-thousand-year-old earth. I cannot imagine a notion more offensive to this group.⁵⁰

We can appreciate Dr. Ross’ desire to avoid placing unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of unbelievers. Certainly, we should remove any unnecessary offenses from our proclamation of the gospel. But I think we can imagine a notion more offensive to unbelieving astronomers and astrophysicists than a young earth. How about this one: “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). My point is not to discount Dr. Ross’ call for sensitivity. My point is to caution us against an unbiblical attempt to make the mes­sage of Scripture completely acceptable and palatable to the modern man. There will always be something offensive in the Bible’s message to the modern man. Therefore, let our motives for interpreting the Scripture be driven ultimately by a desire to be true to God’s word rather than a concern to satisfy the unbeliever.

(5) When a scientific claim appears to cast doubt upon the integrity of Scripture, we must trust in God’s Word even when we don’t have all the answers.

Modem science may at times raise questions which are diffi­cult to answer, and may seem, at least on the surface, to contradict the teaching of Scripture. Evolution really came to the fore­front in the early and mid 19th century. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, and initially many Bible believing Christians had a difficult time sufficiently answering the propo­nents of evolu­tion. Even great theologians like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield had a difficult time answering the critics. It seemed for a time that the Bible may be wrong, and as a result the faith of many was shaken.

But in time, the weaknesses and fallacies of evolution became more obvious and visible. Before long, even non-Christian scientists were questioning the theory of evolution. And by the second half of the 20th century, many excellent refutations of the theory of evolution have appeared.⁵¹ What’s the lesson? We must trust in God and in His Word, even when we don’t have all the answers. Eventually, they’ll come, or God may decide that we don’t need to know them. John L. Dagg, a Baptist theologian and contemporary with Charles Darwin, stated it this way:

The infidel delights to point out apparent discrepancies in Scripture, and he exults when he can announce some supposed discovery of science inconsistent with the word of revelation. While the infidel triumphs, men of weak faith stagger; but it is truly a weak faith that cannot withstand such a shock. We might as well doubt whether the sun shines, when its brilliance is eclipsed by a passing cloud. The mass of evidence that the Bible is the true word of God is so great that we can well afford to wait till the temporary cloud passes, with the confi­dent expectation that the light will again shine, perhaps with increased splendor.⁵²

Has modern science ever cast a shadow of doubt upon your Christian hope? Has your faith been shaken? If it hasn’t already, God may permit to be in the future. The lesson is trust in God. That dark cloud does not cancel out the existence of the sun. The sun is still there; you just can’t clearly see it. Wait. Be patient. In God’s timing the clouds will break and the light of God’s Word will be brighter than it ever was before!

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. For a more thorough defense of the traditional view, see James B. Jordan, Creation In Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, ID.: Canon Press, 1999); Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms (Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus Pub­lications, 1997); Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, eds., Did God Create in Six Days? (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999). [↩]
2. The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) , 83. [↩]
3. Ibid., 91. [↩]
4. Possible examples of poetry would include 1:27; 2:4, 23; 3:14-19; 4:23-24; 9:6; 9:25-27. John Sailhamer suggests a compositional strategy behind these poeti­cal assertions within the larger context of the Pentateuch. “A Wisdom Composition of the Pentateuch?” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 15-35. [↩]
5. Names of geographical places include Eden (2:8, 10, 15, 3:23-24; 4:16), the rivers Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates (2:11-14), the lands of Havilah (2:11), Nod (4:16), Shinar (10:10; 11:2), Assyria (10:11), Canaan (11:31), and the cities of Enoch (4:17), Babel (11:9), Erech (10:10), Accad (10:10), Calneh (10:10), Ninevah (10:12), Rehoboth-Ir (10:12), Calah (10:12), Resen (10:12), Ur (11:28), and Haran (11:31). Archaeologists and historians have not positively identified all these places in extra-biblical sources. Nevertheless, the fact that many of them have been identi­fied suggests that the author of Genesis intended the others to be understood as authentic places. [↩]
6. The first man and woman are identified as Adam and Eve (2:20[?]; 3:17, 20, 21; 4:1, 25; 5:1, 3, 4, 5), three of their immediate offspring as Cain (4:1-17, 25), Abel (4:2-4, 8-9), and Seth (4:25-26; 5:3-8). Several generations of Cain’s descendants are listed by name in a genealogical format (4:17-24), as well as the descendants of Seth leading up to Noah (5:1-32). Then, after the flood, Noah, his three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham, and their descendants are included in the Table of Nations (10:1-32), followed by a genealogy of Shem (11:10-26) that ends with Abram, the son of Terah (11:27-32). In light of these numerous proper names, which are literarily linked together, it is difficult to take seriously Walter Brueggemann’s claim that “In these texts [the primeval narrative], there is almost no historical particularity. Other than the reference to specific peoples in chapters 10-11, there is no concrete identification of historical persons, groups, movements, or institutions. Creation is treated as a unity. And where individual persons are cited, they are treated as representative of all creation, the part for the whole.” Genesis (Atlanta: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1982), 11. [↩]
7. Parables utilize general descriptions (i.e., “poor man,” “rich man,” “prodigal son,” “the father,” “the king,” “the bride,” “the bridegroom,” etc.) rather than specific names. Some point to Jesus’ story of “the rich man and Lazarus” (Luke 16:19-31) as an exception, but the alleged parabolic nature of that story is questionable. Even if one allows such an exception, he does not have an equivalent in the primeval narra­tive since the latter connects the supposed parabolic characters genealogically to real, historical descendants. Furthermore, as E. J. Young observes, the narrator of the primeval story does not pause along the way to draw out the moral lessons, which is characteristic of other biblical parables. Instead the flow of the narrative reads like history. In the Beginning: Genesis 1-3 and the Authority of Scripture (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 84-87. [↩]
8. This structure is the waw consecutive (also called waw conversive), which Gesenius calls, “the narrative tense” (GKC § 111a). It is the predominant syntax of historical narrative (cf. Paul Joüon, GBH § 188c,d). John Currid notes that the waw consecutive occurs fifty-one times in chapter one. A Study Commentary on Genesis (Durham: Evangelical Press, 2003), 1:38-39. [↩]
9. Some translations (RSV, NEB, JB) and a number of commentators have attempted to divide verse 4, viewing 4a as a summary of the preceding creation account and verse 4b as an introduction to the subsequent Eden narrative. For examples of commentators who argue for this division, see Nahum Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 15-17; Speiser, Genesis, The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 5, 7, 14; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 197-199. However, as noted, the Hebrew term toledot consistently introduces a narrative or genealogical list, never ends it. Furthermore, the clear chiastic structure of verse 4 precludes such a division. For a detailed argument against dividing the verse, see Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis I: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961), 96-99; Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, NICOT, ed. Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990), 150-53; Kenneth Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, NAC, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 188-93. [↩]
10. The phrase occurs in 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1, 9; 37:2, with the one variant in 5:1: zeh sepher toledot, literally, “this is the record of the generations.” Outside Genesis the phrase is found in Num. 3:1; Ruth 4:18, and 1 Chron. 1:29. [↩]
11. Bruce Waltke’s comments highlight this point: “Tôlüdôt, from the root yld, meaning ‘to bear children,’ here signifies ‘what is produced or brought into being by someone.’ It is the nominal form of the root, meaning ‘descendants.’ The account pertains to what the cosmos has generated, not the generation of the cosmos.” Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 83. Likewise, Meredith Kline notes, “Not ancestry, not the past, but posterity and the future is in view in that term.” Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 8. Benjamin Shaw argues, “The primary idea of toledoth is not genealogy but rather story, whether that story is told quickly through a genealogical list, or in a more leisurely fashion through the narrative development of plot. “The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and Their Significance for Chronology” (Ph.D. diss., Bob Jones University, 2004), 184. [↩]
12. For a more detailed argument of this point, see Mathews, 26-42; Allen P. Ross, Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 69-88; and the helpful article by Marvin Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and their Redemptive-Historical Significance,” Calvin Theological Journal 5 (1970), 184-89. [↩]
13. Genesis 1-11, 65. Of course, Westermann’s critical presuppositions will not allow him to accept the primeval narrative as genuinely historical. Thus, he goes on to qualify his observation by describing it as having “a resemblance to the history that begins with Abraham [emphasis added]” (66). But this is simply saying that the writer was intentionally trying to deceive his readers, and it undermines the theological validity of the text. As Meir Sternberg notes, commenting in general on biblical narrative, “Were the narrative written or read as fiction, then God would turn from the lord of history into a creature of the imagination, with the most disastrous results…. The product [Scripture] is neither fiction nor historicized fiction nor fictionalized history, but historiography pure and uncompromising.” Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 32-34. [↩]
14. Following the order of the Jewish canon (Tanakh), which places the Chroni­cles corpus last, Stephen Dempster notes that the chronicler begins his his­torical narrative with a series of genealogies that provide a review of redemptive history from Adam up to the present time. In doing so, the writer affirms both the historicity and canonicity of the Genesis narrative. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, NSBT, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003). [↩]
15. The apostle Peter knew the importance of affirming the historicity of redemptive history and assured his readers, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). The Greek word translated “fables” (muthois) is used for fictitious legends or myths. The antonym would be a factual historical account. [↩]
16. The phrase “made the heavens” (Gen. 1:5) is followed by “spread out the earth above the waters” (Gen. 1:6) which is followed by a reference to “the great lights” (Gen. 1:7) that God appointed “to rule over the day” (Gen. 1:8) and “over the night” (Gen. 1:9). The fact that he places the dividing of the land from the waters prior to God’s appointment of celestial bodies to rule the sky is a likely indication that he was thinking of the crea­tion account recorded in Genesis 1. [↩]
17. See Matthew 19:4-6; Luke 3:23-38; John 8:44; Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthi­ans 11:7-9; 15:21, 22, 44-49; 1 Timothy 2:12-14; Hebrews 11:3-7; 2 Peter 3:3-6; 1 John 3:8; Jude 14. [↩]
18. This fact does not discount the literary quality of the Genesis account. The dichotomy between “literary framework” and “historical narrative” is a false one. As the rest of Scripture demonstrates, literary quality and genuine historicity may coincide. [↩]
19. This table is found in Lee Irons with Meredith Klines, “The Framework View,” in The Genesis Debate, 224. [↩]
20. Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 46; Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 115-16; Waltke, Genesis, 57. [↩]
21. For a good overview of the literary structure of the entire Genesis narrative, consult David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Com­mentary on Genesis—Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 47-63. [↩]
22. Jean-Marc Berthoud, Positions Créationnistes, No. 12, May 1990, published by “Comité de l’ Association Création Bible et Science” (Case postale 4, CH 1001 Lausanne, Switzerland), 7, translated and cited by Douglas Kelly, Creation and Change, 115. [↩]
23. Genesis, 54. Kidner goes on to note, “It also seems over-subtle to adopt a view which discounts one of the primary impressions it makes on the ordinary reader.” (54-55). [↩]
24. The waw consecutive with the Qal Imperfect is normally employed to denote discrete and sequential events. See GBH § 118 c; IBHS § 33.2.1. [↩]
25. Proponents of the Literary Framework view also fail to provide a clear interpretive principle for determining what in the text should be interpreted figuratively and what should be interpreted naturally or literally. The only basis for interpreting the creation “days” figuratively while interpreting the referents, such as the land, luminaries, animals, etc., literally appears to be arbitrary. It is difficult to resist the suspicion that the need for the Literary Framework view has arisen not from new insights into the text but from the pressure to allow room for the claims of modern science. [↩]
26. Most of these arguments can be found in the following standard theologies: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1941; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 152-58; Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (1871; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 254-56; Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Chris­tian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 392-94. [↩]
27. Appeals to expressions like “the Day of the Lord” are invalid since the genitive construct constrains the figurative expression in these cases. [↩]
28. The phrase “from morning till evening” may denote a period of time shorter than a full 24-hour period, meaning something like “from sunrise till sunset.” But the absence of the delimiting prepositions “from … till …” together with the doubling of the expression “and it was … and it was …” favors the reading of a 24-hour period for the yoms of Genesis 1. The objection that the first three days of creation could not have been solar days since the sun was not yet created misses the point. They were not identical to solar days but were analogous to solar days in terms of length. As Berkhof notes, “God had, evidently, even previous to the fourth day, established a rhythmic alternation of light and darkness, and there is no ground for the assumption that the days so measured were of longer duration than the later days” (153). [↩]
29. In personal letter to David C. C. Watson, April 23, 1994, cited by Duncan and Hall in “The 24-Hour View,” in The Genesis Debate, 23. Terence Fretheim, who also shares Barr’s critical view of the Scriptures, agrees and argues for the literal six-day view in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 12-35. One might argue that the liberal bias of these scholars prods them to look for examples where Scripture conflicts with science so they can undermine Scripture’s authority. This might be so. On the other hand, the fact they appear to take the text at face value without attempting to force the text in unnatural ways to harmonize with the claims of modern science may provide a higher degree of objectivity in dealing with the text itself. [↩]
30. Hugh Ross has pointed to Hosea 6:2 as an exception to the rule where “on the third day” probably has a figurative sense. See Creation and Time (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 47. It should be noted, however, that the figurative idiom in that passage is referring to a “short time” (NET, NLT) rather than a long epoch. Moreover, the figurative idiom is based on the literal referent. So while the text might be used in the arsenal of the Literary Framework view, it hardly supports the Day-Age argument. [↩]
31. Both of the passages cited above employ the Hebrew accusative of time, suggesting the duration of God’s creative activity as six days (GBH § 126i). The plural modified with a number (sheshet yamiym) is not used elsewhere in a figurative sense. [↩]
32. The argument is often put forth that since the seventh day had no ending but has continued until now, the previous six days must have been great periods of time. See Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, 48-50. However, the Bible nowhere teaches that the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-3 was not a literal day. Berkhof rightly observes that “God not only rested on that day, but He also blessed and hallowed it, setting it aside as a day of rest for man, Ex. 20:11. This would hardly apply to the whole period from the time of creation up to the present day” (153). [↩]
33. Note especially the parallelism between the verb “to make” (‘asah) (Gen 1:26) and the verbs “to create” (bara’) (Gen 1:27) and “to form” (yatsar) (Gen 2:7, 8). [↩]
34. Usually, Elohim designates God as He relates to creation in general. Yahweh, on the other hand, designates God as He relates to His covenant people. See Gustav Oehler, The Theology of the Old Testament, trans. George Day (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883), 98-100; Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1941), 15-41; Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 64-64, 114-119. [↩]
35. For a more thorough rebuttal of this view, see Jordan, Creation in Six Days, 131-69. [↩]
36. Isaiah 45:18 is also marshaled for support: “[God] did not create the world in vain [tohu],” implying that the quality of tohu could have been part of the original creation. However, the verse in Isaiah continues, “[God] formed it to be inhabited.” The point: God’s intent was that the original creation not remain in a state of tohu, but that it be inhabited with living creatures. [↩]
37. Webster’s II: New Riverside University Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1984), s.v. [↩]
38. Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 164, cited in Pipa, Did God Create in Six Days? 190. See also Dabney, 256-63; Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, trans. J. Hendrik De Vries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954), 318-19. [↩]
39. For this reason, I also believe it can be misleading to compare the Genesis creation account to Joshua 10 and refer to its language as “phenomenal.” Phenomenal language refers to a description of a natural phenomenon from a human and terrestrial perspective. But the Genesis 1 creation account gives us a divine, extraterrestrial perspective. [↩]
40. See Frame, Doctrine of God, 308-10. [↩]
41. A number of these works have come from the “Intelligent Design” community. See, for example, Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1998); William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004); Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd edition (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993). These authors provide a powerful critique of evolutionism. Unfortunately, they undervalue depreciate the Biblical witness. [↩]
42. Cited in Henry Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them: Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Creationists (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1997), 207-08. Morris provides a multitude of such concessions. [↩]
43. Theistic evolution suggests that God endowed creation with the capacity to develop from non-organic matter into organic matter and from primitive life forms into more advanced life forms. Hence, man as we know him today, i.e., Homo sapiens, developed from more primitive hominid species. According to the Biblical account, however, Adam and Cain were farmers (2:15; 4:2), and Abel was a shepherd (4:2). Cain built the first city (4:17). Jubal invented musical instruments (4:21) and Tubal-Cain became a metal smith (4:22). These descriptions certainly do not fit the portrait of a primitive Neanderthal man demanded by evolution. [↩]
44. Some Christian scientists and theologians have objected to the “apparent age” argument when used to refer to geological or astronomical age since it would seem to necessitate a kind of pseudo history and therefore implicate God in deception. Robert Newman notes, “When we look at the star Sirius we see what it was doing twelve years ago; when we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see what it would have been doing two million years ago if it had existed then, but it didn’t, so we are really seeing a continuous stream of events that never occurred—fictitious history! As most of the universe is more than ten thousand light-years away, most of the events revealed by light coming from space would be fictional. Since the Bible tells us that God cannot lie, I prefer to interpret nature so as to avoid having God give us fictitious information.” “Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism,” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution, 109. See also Ross, Creation and Time, 96-97. However, as John Frame notes, “God has never told us that the methods scientists use to calculate the age of stars are absolutely and universally valid. The stars are not a book that literally tells us their age. Rather, they are data by which scientists believe they can learn the age of bodies in many cases. Reading that data requires a whole body of scientific theory and methods by which to interpret it. What scientists may learn from Genesis is that these methods do not work for objects that have been specially created. Scientists may need to read Genesis in order to refine their methods to a higher level of precision. Of course, science may not claim that its theories are without exceptions, unless it also claims divine omniscience.” Later Frame alludes to apparent astronomical events like supernovas and asks, “Why would God make it appear as if a great event took place when, indeed, that event could not have happened in the time available since creation?” His answer: “Here, though, we must remind ourselves that all apparent age involves this problem. Any newly created being, whether star, plant, animal, or human being, if created mature, will contain data that in other cases would suggest events prior to its creation. If Adam and Eve were created mature, their bodies would have suggested (on the presupposition of the absolute uniformity of physical laws and processes) that they had been born of normal parents in the usual fashion. Why, then, are their apparent supernovas? From God’s point of view, they may just be another twinkle in the light stream for the benefit of mankind.” Doctrine of God, 308-09. For more arguments in favor of the validity of the “apparent age” argument, see James Jordan, “Creation with Appearance of Age,” Open Book 45 (April 1999); accessed July 7, 2008; available from http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/open-book/no-45-creation-with-the-appear­ance-of-age/; Internet. [↩]
45. Consult especially the following books: Walter Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 7th edition (Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 2001); John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994); John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961). [↩]
46. See Joseph C. Dillow, The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Canopy (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980); Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 240-41. [↩]
47. Walter Brown, In the Beginning, 85-225. [↩]
48. Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light and Time (Box 318, Blackwood, South Australia, 5051; self-published, 1987). Progressive creationists (and some creationists) have discounted this theory, arguing that it would violate Einstein’s second postulate. See Ross, 97-99; Snoke, 24-32; Nevertheless, the creationist Walter Brown has supported Setterfield’s conclusions. See In the Beginning, 232-35. [↩]
49. Writes Humphrey’s, “If the universe were bounded, then there would be a center of mass and a net gravitational force, and we could begin to consider the time-distorting effects of gravity on a massive scale. In such a universe, clocks at the edge of the universe would be ticking at a rate different from clocks in the center.” Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), 19-20. [↩]
50. Creation and Time, 71-72. [↩]
51. In addition to those given in footnote 57 above, see Iain T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Tfe Publications, 1996). [↩]
52. Manual of Theology (Repr., Harrisonburg, PA: Gano Books, 1982), 113. [↩]

24 Responses to “The Six Days of Creation: A Defense of the More Traditional Reading”

1. George W. Seevers, Jr. Says:
   November 4th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

   Bob,

   I must candidly say that this has not been an area in which I have spent a lot of time. Nevertheless, I was intrigued by “Layman”‘s repsonse to the previous blog post. If we allow any interpretation which allows death for any period of time before the fall, then we have serious theological problems. Paul in Romans parallels our condemnation in Adam with our justification in Christ. We can defend justification by faith alone for years, but if we have neglected to declare that there was no death until a certain Adam fell, then we have destroyed our theology.

   With regard to creation, I do not know why this comes to mind, but I will say it: a rainbow is a natural consequence of rain and sunlight. When God gave Noah the rainbow as a sign, there obviously had been no rain prior to the flood. I believe there was more to the flood than just rain, but there was no rain before the flood.

   If we tamper with the Scriptures, we are not going to have a leg to stand on. Our theology will be in shambles, and so will our science, history, philosophy, etc., etc.

2. Layman Says:
   November 4th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

   Mr. Seevers…

   You got the import of my previous post. Your reference to justification was the intent of the reference to the headship doctrine from Romans 5. I suspect your conclusion is correct for those who allow death before Adam in order to accommodate long ages in Genesis. Having lost the connection between sin and condemnation, there will be a tendency to leave off their insistence on the doctrine of justification. In Romans 5, Adam is as real as Moses.

3. Benjamin Says:
   November 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

   Thank you so much for this series, Dr. Gonzales. It was refreshingly considerate of a number of points of view. I think there are still questions that remain, but it was good to see a thoughtful defense of a 24 hour, six day creation, which is the view I hold to as well. I have found it odd in the past that the figurative interpretation propounded by those like Meredith Kline does not seem to consider a simple possibility: that everything GOD does is organized in ways that are meaningful and very often symbolically revelatory so that even a straightforward account of them will take on a recognizable structure. In other words, the literary parallelism apparent in Genesis 1 may not be the product of the artificial situation of the days, according to a topical arrangement. It may rather be the product of GOD’s intentional design when creating which, when recorded chronologically, reflects a meaningful pattern that some have mistaken for a simple literary device. The parallels we see did not arise in the telling but in the creating and a chronological account like Moses’ will therefore still reflect them. I wonder whether we forget to easily where our own ingenuity and literary creativeness comes from. Is it surprising that GOD might create in a way that we can only shadow in our own use of symbolism as a literary device?

   I’m curious, however, as to why you did not address some of the arguments rendered by the day-age camp regarding the yom preceded by “first,” “second,” “third,” etc. The advocates of this view, of course, are aware of this argument and Hugh Ross, for instance, apparently insists that there are at least a few examples of this elsewhere that remain exceptions to the rule you cited. For example:

   The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy. In 1 Samuel 7:2, the word for day is translated as “long time” or “the time was long” and refers to twenty years. In Deuteronomy 10:10, day is translated as “the first time” and refers to forty days. In 1 Chronicles 29:27 the word for day is translated as “the time” and refers to forty years (some translations leave it out since the context makes it repetitive).

   Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.

   Have you seen these “exceptions”? What do you think of them? Also, in regard to the Hebrew phrasing of Genesis 1, on the same site the argument was made:

   One important clarification is needed for my statement that the original Hebrew rendition of the evening-morning-day phrase does not attach the definite article (“the”) to “day”. The YLT translation correctly omits the definite article for the first five days but does include it with the sixth day, which seems to contradict my statement. In Hebrew, the definite article would generally be expected to appear twice in this case–once with the ordinal “sixth” and once with “day”–whereas in English it can only appear once. If the sixth day was intended to be a definite (i.e., solar) day, then the literal Hebrew should have read “the day the six” or even “the day sixth.” This verse instead reads “day the six,” which leaves “day” indefinite (i.e., simply a period of time) but emphasizes the notion of “sixth” by making it definite. The same is true for the “seventh day” (Genesis 2:2-3)–”seventh” is definite but “day” is left indefinite.

   I would be very interested in your thoughts on these.

   Finally, I wonder whether the bare existence of death in the world before the Fall is really so potent an objection to the opposing point of view as some believe. I do not agree with Mr. Seevers, for instance, that death in any form could not have preceded the Fall. Interestingly, I would counter that we would have to grapple with “serious theological problems” if death did not precede the Fall in some sense. It must have been possible for Adam to die by violence at least because Christ took upon Himself a sinless human nature (like Adam before the Fall), yet He was capable of dying at any time by violence–which is why He kept ducking the various attempts upon His life–and, of course, He eventually did die upon the cross. I believe that Christ’s mortality demonstrates amply that death of some kind was possible for even a sinless humanity and that, therefore, sin did not bring “death” in that sense at all.

   Perhaps the notion that sin brought about death by aging and decay would be a better interpretation.

4. George W. Seevers, Jr. Says:
   November 7th, 2009 at 1:45 am

   Benjamin,

   It is late, and I will not address this at length. However, Paul writes, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.” Death is the result of a particular Adam’s fall. In the passage, Adam is placed in parallel with Christ. If a particular Adam did not exist, then how can we maintain that a particular Christ did?

   Death is God’s judgment against sin. The first physical death was that of an animal, whom God killed and whose skins were used as a covering for Adam and Eve. This is what the Scriptures say. Was there a particular Adam, who was the first man? Did he sin? Had God told Adam that if he disobeyed that he would die?

   Of course, if you hold that our particular Adam was the evolutionary consequence of random selection within a primordial soup . . . well, what can I say?

5. George W. Seevers, Jr. Says:
   November 7th, 2009 at 2:19 am

   Benjamin,

   One thing you said about Christ bothered me so much that I had to get out of bed to address it: Christ Jesus did not partake of Adam’s guilt. Furthermore, He had no guilt of His own. The Apostle Peter wrote, “He bore our sins in His body on the cross . . .” Christ did not bear our sins anytime before the cross. He lived a sinless life, and it would have been absolutely impossible for Him to have died before the cross. Death is the consequence of sin, and the only way it was possible for Christ to die was because He was bearing our sins. But even on the cross, He voluntarily gave up His life.

6. deangonzales Says:
   November 7th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

   @George: brother, thanks for your zeal to protect the Bible’s ultimate authority over the human science. I definitely agree with you that the Bible unambiguously ties human death to the fall of mankind. We must, therefore, reject any attempt to construe human death in purely naturalistic terms.

   I think, however, that Benjamin would agree. He is probably highlighting the fact that a commitment to viewing human death as the divinely imposed penal consequence of Adam’s sin does not necessarily commit one to the position of (1) affirming human immortality prior to the fall (since that was a gift yet to be conferred) or to the position of (2) affirming the non-existence of some kinds of animal death before the fall. Allow me to elaborate on each of these in order:

   (1) Was Adam created immortal?

   Some Christians seem to think that Adam was created immortal (i.e., he would have lived forever by virtue of his nature had he not sinned). But I think another viable and biblical way of viewing Adam’s original condition is to view it as contiguous with his moral state. Just as Adam was created with the potential but not necessity to sin (i.e., posse peccare), so Adam was created not with immortality already “in the bag” but with the potential either for immortality or for mortality. Mortality, like human sin, only existed as a potentiality. Similarly, immortality only existed as an eschatological potentiality, a royal grant to be conferred for fealty rendered in man’s accomplishment of his covenantal obligations specified in Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:15–17. This explanation is at least as old as Theophilus of Antioch, who lived in the last half of the second-century AD. Theophilus writes,

   But some one will say to us, ‘Was man made by nature mortal?’ Certainly not. ‘Was he then immortal?’ Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, ‘Was he then nothing?’ Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God[-like]. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, mortal or immortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God[-like]; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself (ANF, 2:105).

   (2) Did God create predator animals?

   It’s one thing to affirm with Scripture that human death is a penal sentence of the curse that finds its origin in Adam’s first transgression. Animal death before man’s fall is, I think, another question. In other words, did God create predators? Did he create, for example, a great white shark, the lion, the eagle? Where these creatures herbivores before the fall? Or did all fish feed on algae? Did all birds refrain from eating insects? Are the lion’s teeth merely a product of the fall or did God create some carnivores? Of course, I believe it’s possible that God could have brought about huge genetic mutations in animals, changing herbivores into carnivores. Yet, I also recognize that good, Bible-believing men have debated this point–men who reject a naturalistic evolutionary worldview but who also think that the exegetical data only constrain us to link human death and not necessarily animal death to the Fall. Some of these commentators suggest that Eden was a kind of sanctuary from death; that outside the Garden there was death; that Adam’s assigned task was to extend the boarders of Eden throughout the entire earth so that death (in any form) might be no more.

   Of course, the scenario I’ve describe above is, I admit, somewhat conjectural. It is certainly possible, on the other hand, that animal as well as human death is the direct result of the fall. It is possible that God caused huge mutations to occur so that in a relatively small period of time an algae eating fish evolved (or devolved) into a shark. With God all things are, indeed, possible.

   The bottom line, however, is what does the Bible teach or require us to believe? Without question, we must trace human death to the Fall and view it as God’s penal curse. But must we also view all predators as products of the curse? That is, I believe, a different question, which Bible-believing men have answered variously.

   @Benjamin: brother, thanks so much for the positive encouragement as well as the the brotherly caveats or counterpoints offered by Dr. Hugh Ross. I was somewhat aware of Dr. Ross’s counter-arguments and that is why I attempted to refrain from an overly dogmatic posture, saying, the six days of the creation week “most likely correspond to six 24-hour days.” Perhaps, though, my failure to address his objections is, after all, a weak link in my argument. Therefore, I’ll attempt to address his “exceptions” (though I don’t have time now seeing it’s 10pm on Saturday night). Suffice it to say that I think his counter-examples fail to discredit the overall thrust of my argument. Yet I’m thankful you raised the caveats and I want, if necessary, to temper my arguments so that I don’t ask them to bear more weight than they’re able to bear.

   Iron sharpening iron,
   Bob Gonzales

7. George W. Seevers, Jr. Says:
   November 9th, 2009 at 1:35 am

   Bob,

   From my perspective, whether Adam was created imortal is pretty much a moot issue since the fall ocurred before the birth of the first child. I would make the case that the fall proceeded directly on the heals of creation.

8. Layman Says:
   November 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am

   Again, I will ask the obvious question. Why is there a tension among Bible believers to accommodate long ages to the days of Genesis 1? Does anyone here disagree that “modern science” demands long ages to account for the theory of common descent? This is the belief that all life forms are the products of macro-evolution, and the geologic column is the proof. Is not accommodation to long ages an acknowledgement that common descent is valid science? Many of the church membership think so.

   Was there any advocate for long ages in Genesis 1 before the age of Darwin? Are we comfortable that Darwinism is influencing our interpretation of Genesis? If the church is the pillar and ground of truth, then will we not stand against this destructive philosophy? Will we not acknowledge that it is an enemy of the cross by undermining the doctrines of redemption?

   Mr. Seevers, I will say a hearty amen to your dogmatic positions regarding the character of Jesus Christ and your reference to the provision made by God through death and the shedding of blood necessary for the coverings for Adam and his wife. Let’s put our theory to the test by asking the question: What is the doctrine of justification of those who disagree with you? Will those familiar with theistic evolution like that advocated by Dr. Ross give us his doctrine of justification?

9. George W. Seevers, Jr. Says:
   November 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

   The significance of the sign of the rainbow is that there had been no rainbow prior to the flood. The significance of death is that death is the direct consequence of the violation of God’s warning in Genesis 2:17. What else, pray tell, could Paul mean when he writes in Romans 5:12 that “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”?

   Nevertheless, some insist that from the beginning, death has been a natural consequence of life. However, I would remind our readers that there was a tree of life in the Garden of Eden, and that tree was not placed off limits until after the fall.
   The Scriptures contrast condemnation and justification. The failure to see that death is the direct result of God’s condemnation of sin will eventually lead to the failure to see that justification is the result of faith alone in Christ Jesus alone.

   This declaration may not make me popular, and it may cause me to seem irrelevant and unsophisticated. However, at my age, these things have ceased to be major concerns.

10. deangonzales Says:
    November 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    @Layman & George: brothers, I genuinely appreciate your zeal to protect cardinal doctrines of Scripture and to insure that we don’t surrender our allegiance to Scripture’s ultimate authority over to the claims of modern science. I do think, however, that we need to distinguish between professing Christians who attempt to smuggle macro-evolution into the church’s creed and those who reject macro-evolution but who are persuaded by empirical data to opt for what might appear to us as a less plausible reading of Scripture in order to harmonize their interpretation of Scripture with their interpretation of science. Once again, they haven’t persuaded me with their presentation of the empirical data that I need to abandon what appears to me the more plausible reading of Genesis 1 and adopt a less plausible reading. But I’m not prepared to employ slippery slope arguments as indictments against them. We may, I think, use slippery slope arguments as “cautionary exhortations” but not as logical proof of the wrongness of a given position.

    To the point–allow me to respond to a few of the concerns expressed by Layman and George.

    (1) I don’t believe Dr. Ross or Dr. Snoke affirm macro-evolution or the idea that humans evolved or developed from non-human hominids. I don’t have their books before me right now (since I’m out of my office), but I’m almost certain they reject macro-evolution and affirm that Adam and Eve were created by a direct act of God (though much longer ago than several thousand years).

    (2) Here’s Dr. Ross’s view of the atonement and justification:

    Redemption

    We believe God has acted sovereignly to bridge the gap that separates people from Himself. He sent His Son, born of a virgin, attested by miracles and by a sinless life, to bear the full penalty for humanity’s sin. Jesus Christ suffered and died in the place of sinners, thus satisfying the Father’s just wrath against human sin, and effecting true reconciliation between God and mankind for those who believe. In the atoning death of Christ, both God’s love and God’s justice are fully manifested. The righteousness of Jesus Christ in perfectly fulfilling the law of God has been graciously credited to all believers. Redemption is solely a work of God’s grace, received exclusively through faith in Jesus Christ, and never by works of human merit.

    Justification

    We believe justification is a judicial act of God’s grace wherein He acquits a person of all sin and accepts that person as righteous in His sight because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Justification is strictly a work of God’s grace, apprehended through faith alone, and solely on the account of Christ.

    (3) Unless I’m mistaken, all old-earth creationists (who deny macro-evolution) affirm that human death is traceable to man’s first transgression and is, therefore, a penal consequence of human sin. What many of them question is whether God originally created all insect, bird, reptile, fish, and mammal life as herbivore and non-predatory in nature.

    What did fish eat before the fall? If not other fish, did they all eat algae? What did birds eat? Only nuts and berries? Or did they eat insects? If they didn’t eat insects–indeed, if insects had no predators, how would the population of insects remain in check? What did the ant-eater consume before the fall with his specialized snout and tongue? What about the marvelous defensive anatomical structures of some animals? The turtle’s shell? The porcupine’s quills? The bombardier beetle’s chemical spray? Are these marvelous anatomical structures traceable to God’s original work of creation? Or did they evolve (rapidly within a young earth time framework) as a result of the curse? Or did God restructure much of animal life in some miraculous and immediate way?

    These are the sort of questions with which Christian scientists have to wrestle. Some, like Ross and Snoke, think they have both empirical and biblical support to posit an old earth in which animal but not human death occurred before the fall. (Some Bible scholars who hold this position argue that the Garden of Eden was a kind of sanctuary that was free from death but that death occurred outside the Garden.) Other creation scientists, particularly young-earth ones, like Henry Morris, argue that God brought about huge anatomical changes through a kind of accelerated process of genetic mutation. In their mind, the genetic potential for predatory and defensive structures probably existed in each creature before the fall but wasn’t triggered until after the fall. Here’s Morris’s view:

    If deteriorative mutational changes occurred in plants, it seems reasonable and even probably that they also would occur in animals. As smoothly rounded structures deteriorated to thorns in plants, so perhaps teeth and nails designed for a herbivorous diet mutated to fangs and claws which, in combination with a progressively increasing dietary deficiency of proteins and other essentials, gradually generated carnivorous appetites in certain animals (The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 125.).

    Ross and Snoke aren’t willing to accept this view because in their minds it posits a kind of macro-evolution taking place within a relatively short time. Of course, Morris is not dogmatic. He’s just suggesting what he believes to be possible, even probably.

    In any case, both parties affirm that human death was not God’s creative intention for humanity and that its origin is traceable to the fall. They both affirm that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals. And I believe both sides affirm an orthodox doctrine of substitutionary atonement and justification.

    In closing, please don’t read my comments as an affirmation of the “old-earth” views of Ross or Snoke. I’m still a young-earther. But I’m not convinced that everyone falling outside the young-earth camp is of necessity an evolutionist or a denier of the Bible’s ultimate authority.

    Hope this helps. And thanks again for your comments.

    Your servant,
    Bob Gonzales

11. Layman Says:
    November 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Bob…

    Thanks for your reply. Also, thank you for giving us the doctrinal statement from Dr. Ross. I am curious as to the date and source of those statements.

    I can agree with your conclusion ‘that [not] everyone falling outside the young-earth camp is of necessity an evolutionist or a denier of the Bible’s ultimate authority.’

    My focus is the authority of Jesus Christ, not whether a man is a young earth creationist or not. Will the church hold to His authority by holding to the testimony of the Scriptures as truth on whatever subject they speak? I see the influence of Darwinism in the church as a threat to His authority.

    The question remains: Is the fossil record the evidence of macro-evolution over long ages of time (or “progressive creation” if you prefer) or is it the record of a catastrophic cataclysm that destroyed the earth by water? The apostle is addressing the church when he warns of the scoffers who will come and deny the Genesis Flood [2 Peter 3].

12. Benjamin Says:
    November 9th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Mr. Seevers, can quick judgments and false accusations arise from righteous motives? I never said and I would forever deny that Christ ever “bore Adam’s guilt” or any guilt of His own. I do not believe that He partook of sin in any way before becoming a sacrifice for us. Rather than springing out of bed in the urge to be quick to speak and slow to listen, you might have read more carefully when I wrote that:

    . . .Christ took upon Himself a sinless human nature (like Adam before the Fall). . .

    Please, note the words “sinless” and “before the Fall.” Our Beloved was fully human and sinless, just as Adam was before He disobeyed. I believe strongly in the parallel Paul strikes in Romans 5, between the first and second Adam. Contrary to your snap judgments about me, I am not a Darwinian nor a fan of Hugh Ross. I wrote expressly that I embrace the young earth perspective and a 24 hour “day” interpretation of creation in Genesis.

    I also believe strongly that “death” was the result of the Fall. What I intended was to ask what Paul meant by “death” in Romans 5 and what GOD meant by in telling Adam that he would surely die (in the most certain terms possible), if he chose to disobey. We know that, when Adam disobeyed, he did not drop down dead on the spot. Could it be that, rather than the sudden existence of the possibility of any kind of death, it was the death that arises from aging and decay that our LORD had in mind? Was it not this process of decay that was underway immediately after Adam sinned?

    Jesus certainly could be injured and die before His final crucifixion. That is obvious to anyone who pays attention to the fact that he kept dodging attempts on His life throughout the Gospels. The people would try to stone Him and He hid Himself from them. Satan tempted Him in the wilderness by suggesting that, after leaping from the Temple Mount, He would not be harmed because angels would protect Him, not because He was impervious to physical injury. This was a quotation of Psalm 91, a Messianic Psalm, which assumes that the Messiah will be fully capable of physical injury and is to be protected by angelic guardians. Messianic prophecy did not assume that the Messiah was impervious to injury and death. Quite the reverse.

    Before the cross, He was capable of pain and suffering, of starvation (He needed food and drink to live), of deprivation of various kinds, of exhaustion, of being bruised, battered, bled, pierced by thorns and crushed, and even of being stoned to death. In each case, whether thrown from a cliff or stoned by a mob, He knew that the people were “seeking to kill” Him, but He hid himself because “His hour had not yet come.” It was hardly true that He had to become sin for us before He could have a fatal accident.

    Now, I believe that Jesus would never have died of old age. He would not have decayed into an old man had He lived many years longer than He did because aging is the result of sin. This, I think, we agree upon… but this is as far as the Scriptures will allow us to go.

13. Benjamin Says:
    November 9th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Dr. Gonzales, thank you for your gracious response and for trying to explain my position more fairly to others. I am with you wholeheartedly when you resist Ross’ arguments (and the arguments of others), continuing to affirm that those positions fail to adequately engage the enormous potential of the traditional view and the full evidence of Scripture.

    I don’t think the exceptions do the matter justice, which is why (as you probably noted) I placed the term in quotation marks. I was simply very interested in seeing what you had to say in response to them as I suspected you would be very fair in your handling of them. I still hope at some point to have the pleasure of reading your thoughts on the subject. Until then…

14. George W. Seevers, Jr. Says:
    November 10th, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Dear Benjamin,

    My question is this: was the crucifixion determined before the foundation of the world? If so, could Jesus’ death have been accomplished in any other fashion? Of course, I realize that you may consider that these questions to be nonsensical and have little bearing on the subject at hand.

    With regard to any of your other accusations against me, I have often said that if my accusers knew me better, they could do a far better job maligning my character. I cast myself upon Christ alone, knowing that He alone is both Judge and Vindicator.

15. Layman Says:
    November 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Bob…

    Thank you for your labors in providing this forum, and thank you for allowing me to post. This is the substance of my argument regarding death before Adam.

    It is a grievous thing to consider that some of the people of God are willing to allow the idea of death and suffering before Adam’s sin. The only way to understand this in my thinking is from the influence of evolution in the church. This is why I consider it a vain philosophy disguised as science and an enemy of the cross. Real science is about the investigation of God’s creation as part of the dominion mandate and the discovery of His methods in the things that exist because they declare His glory.

    God is explicit at the end of Genesis 1 that at the END of the days of creation all things he had made were ‘very good’…

    ‘Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day’ [Genesis 1:31].

    The word ‘grievous’ was used for a reason. How can the people of God attribute the use of death and suffering as means of God’s creation as ‘very good’? The only answer is that something other than the Bible is their ultimate authority. Why will we not heed the warning of 2 Peter 3? Why do men advocate a local flood? Is it not because their view of the geologic column will not allow a world-wide catastrophic flood that could produce the fossil record? Yes! Their view of the column trumps the Biblical testimony.

    Death in Scripture is called our enemy, specifically ‘the last enemy that will be destroyed is death’ [1 Corinthians 15:26]. How can we allow the position in the church that our mortal enemy existed in the preparation for the creation of man? If ‘the wages of sin is death’, will we make God unjust by allowing death before sin? Therefore, consider that any thought that death is something other than our enemy as a part of the creation before the fall is no friend of the church, but also our enemy.

16. Benjamin Says:
    November 10th, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    Mr. Seevers, I agree with you that Christ’s death was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Like you, I do not believe He would have died any other way because GOD’s will cannot be thwarted. All this shows is that, though Christ was capable of dying if He was stoned or cast from a cliff, neither He nor anyone else will die before their time. What this idea does not show us is that Christ could not suffer or die because He was indestructible by nature.

    The same argument you use could be used of Elijah and Enoch, neither of whom experienced the death you’re referring to at all, yet they were sinners. I do not think you would say that the fact they never died, by GOD’s good purpose beforehand, meant that they were indestructible by nature while they were on the earth. But what they did experience which Christ did not was aging and decay which I take to be the result of the Fall.

    As for my accusations, they were hardly an attempt to “malign” your character, especially if they were true to form. I appreciate your echo of Spurgeon’s sentiments… but what this doesn’t address or admit of is whether you did falsely read into what I said and accuse me of heretical views (that Christ was a sinner, for instance) that I do not and have never held. You did this and your response was not really an apology, was it?

    I’m sure you already know that our Christ teaches us to approach a brother that we have anything against–and given that your eagerness to judge and false assumptions about me were public–I put the matter simply before you. There are no grounds, it seems to me, for you to be offended, but if you are, please tell me. In the meantime, a pretense of humility surely cannot be a resolution to the problem.

17. Benjamin Says:
    November 10th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    To Layman…

    I hope that I have not given you the impression that I believe that death of any kind existed before the Fall. I am arguing that the possibility of dying, in only one sense of that word, existed before the Fall. The only way you can construe from this that the “wages of sin” would have thus been in effect before sin entered the world would be if you read your own definition of “death” back into that verse. If “death,” however, is to be defined rather as the result of corruption and decay (aging), then there is no problem posed for GOD’s justice.

    Death is the enemy because it is inescapable, the inevitable result of corruption which dashes the hopes of all who think to build up riches in this life and avoid the judgment. We put on the “imperishable” body after resurrection, but as Paul pointed out, our imperishable bodies will be like Christ’s risen body. Christ had an imperishable body after His resurrection, but not necessarily before. His risen body was unlike His body before death. Obviously, He could not walk through walls and vanish into thin air before.

    Furthermore, none of this resolves the Biblical evidence put forward already. Neither Adam nor Christ (who shared the same human nature) were indestructible, as I have shown. They were protected, and if so then this would obviously be evidence that they could be harmed (even if they were not harmed).

    This does not require us to reject orthodox notions of the goodness of creation, the imputation of righteousness or justification or eschatological victory over death. The “goodness” of creation does NOT imply that creation was indestructible or no longer in need of GOD’s constant sustaining grace. Entirely dependent and needy, if Adam or Eve chose not to eat and pretended to have an indestructible nature they did not possess, yes, they would have starved. The genuine need for food and the utter dependence of man upon certain things did not come along only because of sin.

    When in glory we will be protected, and death (which is inevitable in this life because of corruption and decay) will be banished. I hope that you will be willing at least to acknowledge this Biblical evidence and address it.

18. deangonzales Says:
    November 12th, 2009 at 12:43 am

    Benjamin,

    Thanks for your patience. I’m prepared to address some of the counter-arguments of Dr. Hugh Ross to the traditional reading that sees the yoms of Genesis 1:3-2:3 as corresponding to what we would call seven 24-hour solar days or one week. Here’s my attempt at a rejoinder to Ross’s arguments:

    FIRST, he is correct to note that the Hebrew article does not appear with either the term yom or the number in days 1 thru 5. It only occurs with reference to days 6 and 7. Moreover, in these cases the article only occurs with the ordinal number and not with the term yom. That this phenomenon rules out the reading of the creation week yoms as referring to periods of time corresponding to 24-hour periods is, however, unlikely for the following reasons:

    (1) The “definiteness” of a noun in Hebrew does not depend on the presence of an article. Frequently, anarthrous nouns are made definite when they stand in construct relationship with another noun. This is called the “Genitive construct,” a kind of x of y construction (see Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (IBHS), § 9.3- 8; Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (HS), §§ 28-31; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (GBH), § 129.). In such cases, the construct noun is almost always anarthrous. And the definiteness of the Genitive or rectum is carried over to the construct or regens. Here are a few examples:

    • Literally, “a spirit of Elohim” = “the Spirit of Elohim,” i.e., Elohim’s Spirit” (Gen. 1:2). [Note: though the term Elohim is not prefixed with a definite article, it’s definite in this context since it’s denominating the one true God. Accordingly, the term ruach or “spirit” is made definite by virtue of its construct relationship with the definite noun Elohim.]

    • Literally, “in a middle of the waters” = “in the middle of the waters” (Gen. 1:6). [Note: the term “middle" or "midst" is indefinite. Nevertheless, it becomes definite by virtue of its construct relationship to “the waters.”]

    • Literally, “in an expanse of the heavens” = “in the expanse of the heavens” (Gen. 1:17). [Note: the Hebrew term “expanse” (raqia’) is anarthrous. Nevertheless, due to the fact that it stands in construct with “the heavens,” it’s appropriately translated as a definite noun.]

    • Literally, “these are generations of the heavens and the earth” = “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4). [Note: the definiteness of “the generations” is not obtained by the affixing of an article but rather by its construct relationship to “the heavens” and “the earth.”]

    • Literally, “words of the prophets” = “the words of the prophets,” i.e., “the prophets’ words” (1 Kings 22:13). [Note: once again, the Hebrew term for words (dibare) is anarthrous or indefinite in form. However, its construct relationship to “the prophets” makes it definite, i.e., “the words of ….”]

    (2) Application: contra Ross, the anarthrous yoms of the sixth and seventh day are not in fact grammatically indefinite. On the contrary, they are definite precisely because they stand in construct relationship to modifiers with a definite article. So “a yom the sixth” in 1:31 and “a yom the seventh” in 2:3 should be translated “the sixth day” and “the seventh day” respectively, as it is in nearly all English versions (KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJ, NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, CSB, TNK). Young’s Literal Translation has, I fear, mislead Dr. Ross.

    (3) It is true that the ordinal number frequently stands in attributive relationship with the noun it modifies, in which case both are articular, as in “the day the sixth,” meaning “the sixth day.” But what Dr. Ross appears to overlook is the fact that such a relationship actually occurs in Genesis 2:2 where Moses twice refers to the “the seventh day” and in fact does prefix the article to yom in both cases, reading literally, “in [or "on"] the day the seventh.” So whatever ambiguity Ross thinks he’s discovered in 1:31 and 2:3 is removed in 2:2. This is further confirmed by Exodus 20:11 where we read that God made the world in “six days” and rested on “the seventh day” (both day and seventh are definite or articular.). Interestingly, both the LXX and the author of Hebrews place an article on both “day” and also the ordinal “seventh” in translating Genesis 2:2-3 (see Hebrews 4:4).

    (4) One can find other examples of an indefinite yom preceding an definite ordinal number in which case the referent is unmistakably a 24-hour day:

    Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, [Literally, “until a day the seventh”] that person shall be cut off from Israel (Exod. 12:15, ESV). [Note: clearly this is referring to a literal 24-hour period since the preceding context speaks of a seven-day week.]

    But the seventh day [Literally, “a day the seventh”] is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates (Exod. 20:10, ESV). [Note: they are to work six days, obviously a reference to six 24-hour days, but they are to rest on, literally, “a day the seventh.” Certainly, Dr. Ross would not argue that the seventh yom in this case must refer to an indefinite period of time because yom is anarthrous.]

    It shall be eaten the same day you offer it or on the day after, and anything left over until the third day [Literally, “until a day the third] shall be burned up with fire (Lev. 19:6, ESV). [Note: once again, the context clearly indicates that solar days are in view even though the article doesn’t appear before yom.]

    And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month [Literally, “a day the month the second”], for he was grieved for David, because his father had disgraced him (1 Sam. 20:34, ESV). [Note: in this case both “month” and “second” have the article. But “day” is anarthrous. Nevertheless, the construct relationship transfers the definiteness from the Genitive (rectum) to the construct noun (regens).]

    (5) Finally, it must be admitted that the juxtaposition of the anarthrous “day” or yom with an anarthrous ordinal number in “days” 1 thru 5 is somewhat unusual. That is, normally, we would expect something like “the day the first” or “a day the second” but we find “a day a third.” Does such a reading constrain an interpretation of “epochs” or indefinite and lengthy periods of time? I think not. First, we’ve already noted that the 6th and 7th days should be translated as definite on grammatical grounds. Second, the phrase “and it was evening and it was morning” supports, I still believe, the idea of a period corresponding to a solar day (see below). Third, the Decalogue’s reference to the creation week supports the view that sees the creation/rest week as corresponding to what we normally think of as a period of seven 24-hour solar days (Exod. 20:8-11).

    In conclusion, Ross’s attempt to construe the yoms of day six and seven as indefinite periods of time fails grammatically, syntactically, and contextually. Since the sixth ad seventh days are grammatically definite, we are on good grammatical footing to interpret and translate the preceding 5 days as definite, i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” “the third day,” etc., despite the absence of the article. But what of Ross’s argument that Ordinal numbers or other modifiers of yom are sometimes used with yom to denote a period of time other than a 24-hour period—in some cases, a period longer than a 24-hour period? That brings me to my second rejoinder:

    SECOND, I stated in my argument that “as far as I could tell, whenever the word yom is used with an ordinal number, such as ‘first,’ ‘second,’ ‘third,’ etc., it designates a 24-hour day (cf. Exod. 12:15, 16, 18; 16:22, 29; 24:16; Lev 7:17, 18; 12:3; Num 19:12, 19; Josh 6:4, 15; Judg. 19:8; etc.). But Dr. Ross thinks he’s found several exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless, the following observations are worth noting:

    (1) In only two of the five passages referenced by Ross (Zech. 14:7; Hos. 6:2; 1 Sam. 7:2; Deut. 10:10; 1 Chron. 29:27) is an ordinal number employed. Those two texts are Hosea 6:2 and Deuteronomy 10:10, which I will examine last.

    (2) In Zechariah 14:7, the cardinal number “one” (’echad) is juxtaposed with yom and rendered commonly as “a day” (CSB, not surprisingly, since the cardinal “one” may function like an indefinite article), “one day” (LXX, Vulgate, KJV, DRA, ASV, NKJ, NET), or “a unique day” (ESV, NASB, NIV). Curiously, though, a number of versions render the “day one” as “a continuous day” (NLT, NAB, NJB, NRSV). The idea might be something like “a day without end.” On the surface, such a reading might seem to support Ross’s contention that the Hebrew yom can refer to a period other than a 24-hour solar day.

    However, I believe this exception only reinforces the general rule. First, the context seems to indicate that this is indeed “a day” but a “unique” one at that. Here’s what makes it unusual: “neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light” (14:7b, ESV). In other words, the reference is to a literally day. However, this literal day will differ from normal days in that the normal cycle of daylight and dark will be suspended, that is, when the reader would expect the sun to set, bringing darkness, there will still be light. So I don’t think this example supports Ross’s argument. The prophet here is referring to a literally “day” in the text but a “unique” day in which the cycle “and it was evening and it was morning” does not obtain in contrast with the yoms of Genesis 1.

    (3) According to Ross the word for “day” in 1 Samuel 7:2 means something like “the time was long” and refers to twenty years. But this is misleading. Literally the text reads, “And the days (plural) multiplied, and twenty years passed.” In other words, the Hebrew yom is in the plural and the object of the verb “to multiply.” In this case, yom by itself does not refer to an indefinite or lengthy period of time.

    (4) Ross gives 1 Chronicles 29:27 as an example in which the word for “day” designates a time period equivalent to forty years. As pointed out above, the there is no ordinal number accompanying yom. Moreover, the phrase translated “the time” by Ross literally reads, “the days” (plural!). So it’s not “the day” but “the days” of David’s reign that are specifically described as “forty years.” So this passage doesn’t prove the that singular yom can refer to a lengthy period of time (though that fact is true enough) but only that the plural “days” may be used for a lengthy period of time.

    (5) Ross also references Deuteronomy 10:10 and says, “Day is translated as ‘the first time’ and refers to forty days.” Once again, Ross is not carefully reading the Hebrew and seems dependent on English translation. The Hebrew literally reads, “As for me, I stood on the mountain forty days and forty nights as the first days [emphasis added]” Here the ordinal number “first” occurs in the plural with article (hari’shnim). But it modifies “days” in the plural with the article. Hence, the “first days” here refer to the previous series of forty days and forty nights (see Exod. 24:18; Deut. 9:9), which are in fact solar days, in which Moses was atop the holy mountain.

    (6) Hosea 6:2 does provide an example of the singular yom used with ordinal numbers. I think it would be best if I cited the text along with verse 1, giving more of the context:

    Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him (ESV).

    The key phrase is “after two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up.” It literally reads, “And he will revive us after days; on the third day he will raise us up.” In keeping with Hebrew parallelism, the two clauses are parallel. “Revive” is roughly equivalent to “raise up.” Similarly, “after days” would be the equivalent of “on the third day.” This explains why many English translations render the phrase “after two days” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJ, ESV) even though the number “two” does not appear.

    It seems likely that the prophet is using a figure of speech. The phrase “on the third day” is a literal time-frame referent, i.e., within three days, but it has a figurative meaning. But the meaning is not “on the third indefinite period of time.” Indeed, as correctly rendered in a few Bible versions, the figurative meaning in this passage is to a short period of time. Hence, the NET reads, “He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence.” The NLT conflates the two phrases into, “In just a short time he will restore us, so that we may live in his presence.”

    I must confess that Hosea 6:2 gives us an example of an ordinal number used with yom that has a figurative rather than a literal sense. It should be noted, however, that the figurative meaning (i.e., “short time”) is derived from the literal referent (i.e., “on the third day”). So although I should add a footnote qualifying my argument above, I don’t think I need to concede Ross’s argument in favor of interpreting the yoms of Genesis 1 as long ages on the basis of Hosea 6:2, which uses an idiom that refers not to a long but a very short period of time. If anything, the figurative use of yom in Hosea 6:2 might be enlisted in the service of the Literary Framework view. But it doesn’t support the Day-Age theory of Ross.

    In conclusion, it may still be argued that the use of the singular yom with the ordinal does refer in the OT to a 24-hour day. It may be conceded, however, that in the case of Hosea 6:2, the literal meaning is changed into a figure for a “short time.” I’ll make a note of this in my article above in order to make my observation more accurate. This concession doesn’t necessarily support Ross’s view of yom. That brings me to the third counter-example offered by Ross.

    THIRD, in my article above I remark, “If each of the six creative days are made up of two phases—evening and morning—then it seems obvious that Moses is referring to a unit of time that corresponds in terms of length to a 24-hour solar day.” But Ross avers, “The Hebrew for the phrase ‘evening and morning’ or ‘evening, and there was morning’ has usages not limited to 24-hour days.” In his mind the phraseology may denote “something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.” He offers the following texts: Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26. Let’s look at these texts to see if they’ll bear the weight Ross asks them to carry:

    (1) Exodus 18:13 reads, “The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening [emphasis added]” Certainly, the phrase “from morning till evening” probably denotes something like “from sunrise to sunset,” a period less than a full 24-hours. I suppose that one might argue that God’s creative activity in Genesis 1 occurred within a similar time-frame, i.e., God worked from sunrise to sunset. Even if that were the correct reading for Genesis 1, it wouldn’t support the day-age view but would fit better with the traditional view. Moreover, Genesis 1 reads, “And there was evening and there was morning” rather than utilizing the delimiting combination of the “from … till …” prepositions. I think I should add a qualifying remark in my article above to the effect that “evening and morning” may denote the period between dusk and dawn or vice versa. But I don’t see how that supports Ross’s view.

    (2) The second example, Exodus 27:21, provides an example parallel in meaning to the one we’ve just considered. “Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening to morning before the LORD [emphasis added]” So once again the phrase may denote a period shorter than a full 24-hours. But it certainly doesn’t mean that they’re to work perpetually for ages upon ages without any sleep!

    (3) In Leviticus 24:2-3, God says to Moses, “Command the people of Israel to bring you pure oil from beaten olives for the lamp, that a light may be kept burning regularly. Outside the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, Aaron shall arrange it from evening to morning before the LORD regularly. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations [emphasis added]” The reader will note that the phrase “from evening to morning” is used in connection with the adverb “regularly” (tamid) and the phrase “throughout your generations.” Once again, the proper interpretation of “from morning till evening” seems to be a regular workday though it might span a full 24-hour period. This daily burning of the lamp is to be “regular,” that is, there are not to be intermittent days when the lamp doesn’t burn. Moreover, that statute is perpetual, from one generation to another. Once again, the phrase seems to denote a period of time either between dawn and dusk or spanning a full 24-hours. Only when the phrase is combined with the adverb “regularly” and the phrase “throughout all generations” may one arrive at a period of time longer than 24 hours.

    (4) The final example offered by Ross is found in Daniel 8. In verse 14 a “holy one” communicates the following to Daniel: “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” This is referred to in verse 26 as “The vision of the evenings and the mornings.” Being apocalyptic literature, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that commentators debate whether the reference to 2,300 evenings and mornings should be taken literally or figuratively. Those who interpret it literally debate whether it’s referring to full 24-hour days or the evening and morning sacrifices, i.e., half a day or roughly 12 hours, totaling 1,150 days (see the NET Bible study notes).

    It’s one thing to argue that 2,300 evenings and mornings probably refers to a lengthy period of time, perhaps even symbolically to an age. It is quite another, in my opinion, to interpret “And it was evening and it was morning, the [or “a”] second day” as referring to a geological epoch of great proportions.

    In conclusion, none of Dr. Ross’s “counter-examples” persuade me to interpret the yoms of Genesis 1 or their modifying phrase “and it was evening and it was morning” as anything other than a period corresponding to a “day” in the normal sense of the term. At most, a few examples Ross highlights suggest that a literal 24-hour period may be used figuratively (Hos. 6:2) or symbolically (Dan. 8:14). These few examples might be marshaled in favor of the Literary Framework view. But I don’t find them helpful to the Day-Age cause of Dr. Ross. And since there are other considerations that render the Literary Framework view a less plausible reading, I think my overall argument stands.

    Nevertheless, Benjamin, I appreciate your calling to my attention Dr. Ross’s counter-examples. As a result of your careful reading, I was prompted to reexamine his objections and to make minor modifications to my article above, adding clarifying remarks and notes in which I address Dr. Ross’s objections. Brother, as usual, you have a careful eye and keen mind. Thanks for catching my oversight and prompting me to improve my case.

    Gratefully yours,
    Bob Gonzales

19. Benjamin Says:
    November 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    And thank you, my brother, for your desire to be as faithful as you can be…

20. BJ Mora Says:
    November 15th, 2009 at 7:19 am

    Thank you Dr. Gonzales for a helpful set of articles.

    (Your “first number 5 consideration” (God’s creative activity… ) should be number 4. (smile)

    Blessings,
    BJ Mora

21. The Six-Days of Creation: Some Modern Interpretations of the Creation Week in Genesis One | RBS Tabletalk Says:
    November 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am

    [...] I think the exegetical evidence still favors the traditional view as the more plausible reading. In Part 2, I’ll offer some arguments for reading of the six-days of the Genesis creation week as [...]

22. Alice Young Says:
    November 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Great point of view, I totally agree.

23. The Six Days of Creation: A Defense of the More Traditional Reading Says:
    December 16th, 2009 at 12:20 am

    [...] http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/11/the-six-days-of-creation-a-defense-of-the-more-traditional-readin... [...]

24. Alan Foos Says:
    March 21st, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Thank you for a compelling argument. I am still reluctant to take a stand on the absolute literal interpretation of Genesis for the following reasons: 1) it is heavily weighted towards the material, e.g., heaven being the physical stars as opposed to the spiritual dwelling place of God, light being sun/star light which is NOT the true light of God. 2) not to advocate evolution, but it certainly does appear that the physical heavens are extremely old and that geological processes are common causal agents in the formation of structures. 3) that the same Christians who felt obligated to tutor me in these basics, as if my 8 years in univ science/math in mcl standing were meaningless, also claiming to be led by the holy spirit sold many millions of dollars in fraudulent investments against my advice to other Christians, in the process causing far more severe financial and emotional hardship for myself and family. 4) that over 30 years later, fellow Christians are still focused on these issues and oppose evolutionary science, while at the same time strongly promoting the fraud of vaccinations, fluoride, pharmaceuticals and many other “scientific” frauds that are causing untold damage and suffering in our world, and which can be exposed by good science.

    It is plain to me, then, that the judgment and insight, either spiritual or scientific, of my dear Christian brothers and sisters, cannot be trusted in those areas where God would never agree and where consequences expose the worst of evils and that have been allowed to word horrific destrution on the lives of myself, children and other family members. Personally, I must believe Genesis without being able to form rigid opinion on how God wishes it to be best interpreted, while I find that my Christian brothers and sisters who are most strident about the literal interpretation are also most likely to fall prey to deceptive practices in other areas of life that have far more damaging consequences to others than they commonly do to themselves. Meanwhile, I will continue praying that God give me better wisdom in the meaning of Genesis, but even more important, that my brothers and sisters become more discerning about the welfare of others and the value of a good education in math and science.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.