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

Blessings,
BJ Mora

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

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.

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.

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.

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.