Genesis 1 and "old-earth" vs. "young-earth" creationism

When the Bible says “day”—as in, “that was the first day”—what does that mean? Of course, to modern ears, my question might sound Clintonian (“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”). As a first pass, it reads to us like a literal day. On the other hand, "with the Lord, a day is like a 1000 years" (Ps 90:4, II Pet 3:8) and we worship a God who is outside of time. So let’s keep the question open at least a little longer…

The bulk of the debate is between those who embrace “Old Earth” (OE) creationism or “Young Earth” (YE) creationism. (There are other theories; I’ll teach/blog on some of those in the coming weeks.) First, it’s important to note that “creationism” encompasses both—while many proponents of Evolution, out of ignorance or to score cheap/false rhetorical points—use the term to refer to YE only.

YE argues that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days; OE argues that each day represents an indefinite period. Each side claims to be literal—the OE side arguing that the original intent of the text allows (or even requires) a day/age approach. It should be noted that there is no debate here over the WHO of Creation, but disagreement over HOW and WHEN. (As I posted earlier, both have varying sorts/levels of disagreement with Evolution as a comprehensive explanation for the development of life.)

I’ll spend a little bit of time on the science and church history angles before spending the bulk of this post on the biblical evidences.

From a scientific angle, the most prominent OE proponent is Hugh Ross with Reasons to Believe; the most prominent YE proponent is Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis. I don’t know enough about science to say definitively; when I listen to one or the other, each side often sounds reasonable. Of course, the bulk of modern science seems to support OE, but we certainly have other categories of evidence to consider.

I’m also impressed by physicist Gerald Schroeder’s both/and theory in The Science of God. He argues that Creation occurred over six days from a cosmic perspective and the universe is 15.75 billion years old from earth’s perspective. This lines up with OE science, the manner in which light travels, and the relativity of time.

With respect to what the church fathers have written, I’ve read both sides—most recently in a useful “Three Views” book on Genesis 1. Without going back to the original sources, I am not clear on the extent to which OE views—or more broadly, non-24-hour-day views—were prevalent. (I care about this issue, but not nearly that much!) That said, it is quite safe to say that there was little dogmatism on this question until the mid-late-19th century.

Here’s a crucial but oft-overlooked issue. Beyond the available evidences—scientific, historical, and biblical—there is the vital question about the weight one should attach to each category. God reveals Himself through nature (Rom 1:20), but how good are we at reading that “book”? God reveals Himself through history, but how good are we at understanding His activity in history? God reveals Himself through His Word, but how good are we at interpreting it? Moreover, in each field, we all bring biases and pre-conceived notions to the table. The Bible is not a science or a history book, but is accurate insofar as it touches on science and history. But what is that extent—and to what extent can we trust our interpretations of each category, individually or in combination? YE’ers will say that we should not “compromise” with science. But what would they have said, ex ante, about those who abandoned the traditional understanding in church history of an earth-centered universe? More recently, some YE’ers have abandoned Ussher’s (traditional) date of 4004 BC to approximately 8000 BC—in order to line Scripture up with archaeology. When are such adjustments to be considered compromise rather than merely improving our understanding of nature, history, and the Bible? 

So, what does the Bible say about this? The YE case is quite clear; it takes more time to develop the OE case. First, let’s consider the key Hebrew word in question. 

1.) In Genesis 1:5, “day” (the Hebrew word yom) is used in 1:5a to refer to the daylight part of a day—and in 1:5b as a complete ‘one day’. (See also: Genesis 1:14-19.) 

2.) In Genesis 2:2-3, the 7^th day does not mention an evening or a morning, suggesting that this day has not yet ended—and is, thus, (far) longer than a 24-hour day. (In Heb 3:7-4:11, the 7^th day is extended at least until Christ’s 1^st coming. See also: Do we interpret Ex 20:9-11 and Jn 5:17 as literal or metaphor? Are Lev 8:33 and Lev 25:8 to be read as a direct comparison or metaphor?)

                3.) Genesis 2:4’s ‘when’ in the NIV is literally “in the day (yom)”—again, clearly more than one day.

                4.) In Genesis 2:17’s “when” is again “in that day”—but here, implying a moment (3:5).

In sum, there are five different meanings for yom in Gen 1-2. Elsewhere, yom is translated 950x in the NIV as “day”, 474x as “days”, and numerous other singular and plural words. I’ve read YE’ers who claim that yom must be seen as a 24-hour day, but this is not required biblically (Hos 6:2) or apparently by Hebrew grammar. And recently, I read that yom was the only Hebrew word available for a long period of time when Genesis was written (olam became available later).

Second, how did Adam complete all of the Day 6 tasks (1:24-31; 2:7-9,15-22) and feel 2:18,20,23’s profound sense of (boredom and) loneliness in less than 24 hours?! (Feel free to insert a joke about men here!)

Archer notes that Linneaus took several decades to classify all the species known to Europe. Biblically, to be human is to be limited, even in a pre-Fallen state. And even if Adam were super-skilled, why would we infer that he was also super-bored?!

Moreover, if God was in no hurry with Creation (six days vs. instantaneous and “saw that it was good”), why would he want Adam to be rushed (vs. careful study and admiration)? If Christ was here for 33 years, why would Adam’s vital work be accomplished in just a few hours? As Ross and Archer note: “As God introduces Adam to the three levels of His creation—the physical, the soulish, and the spiritual—He teaches and prepares Adam for life on earth and for the care and keeping of the land, the plants and the animals…Throughout Scripture we see that God offers no shortcuts to experience, knowledge, discipline and maturity.”

In a word, the YE assumptions here are extra-biblical—if not anti-biblical—and difficult to reconcile with what we know theologically.

Third, there are a handful of passages which seem odd—if not incoherent—without the earth’s antiquity: Hab 3:6, II Pet 3:5; Job 15:7, Ps 90:2,4, Pr 8:22-31, Eccl 1:4, and Mic 6:2. As Randy Baker notes: “The Bible uses the antiquity of the founding of the earth as a suitable metaphor for God’s eternality. If the earth is only 144 hours older than the human race, this metaphor loses its force.”

YE’ers express concerns about Rom 5:12 (I Cor 15:21-22)? But this should be interpreted as Paul speaking to the figurative/spiritual death of man, not the physical death of man or animals. There are very good reasons to believe that plants died pre-Fall—and some interesting arguments for even animals dying pre-Fall.

One other consideration: the universe may have been created with “apparent age”. (YE’ers rely, in varying degrees, on apparent age—for example, with respect to stars and starlight created in transit.) This may seem deceptive, but almost by definition, we’d probably find apparent age in newly created rocks, Adam & Eve as adults, mature trees/plants, etc. Note also that Christ’s first miracle—Jn 2's water to wine (following Jesus as Creator in Jn 1)—was an act of creation, resulting in something with apparent age! And remember Dolly, the DNA-cloned sheep? Her DNA looked six years older than she ‘is’. One final thought: apparent age would only be “apparent” since we can’t see well/deeply enough.

So, what are the options for the Biblical Christian?

1.) literal days with YE scientific evidences

2.) figurative days with day-age explanation and OE scientific evidence

3.) Schroeder’s both/and: cosmic vs. earth’s perspective on time

4.) figurative days with “literary framework” (more later)—focusing on the parallels between days 1-3 and 4-6

5.) literal or figurative days with “apparent age”

Bottom line: There is no reason to be dogmatic—except to say that we’re not sure. Biblically, dogmatic YE’ers are “weaker brothers” (Rom 14). They view all OE’ers as compromisers, but this cannot be supported biblically. And clearly, this issue should not be a stumbling block for non-Christians or Christians. In fact, Christians should be “thoroughly equipped” to argue both sides—to minister and evangelize more effectively—whether they believe one side or another. So, focus on the flaws of Evolution—and know at least two of the many sides of this debate.