Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days

The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 10^9 years old. The universe is ~14 x 10^9 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way.

Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.

Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:

In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)

This verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.

The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:

1."This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20) 2.Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15) 3."For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4) 4."And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26) The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.

However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"

•And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5) •And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8) •And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13) •And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19) •And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23) •And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31) The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.

How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.

1.The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time. 2.Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." 3.The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." 4.In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long: For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11) 5.The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4). 6.The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). 7.The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long. 8.The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God. 9.The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).

If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).

Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.

Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.

Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."

Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.

Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.

I could not agree less. The more we learn about DNA the more we see how the infant creation process attempts to de-select for all mutations. Now I’m not saying that no mutations survive in the new creation but even after that there are still many more coping mechanisms to work around these problems.

Too bad you accept so much of what you read and hear about evolution so blindly. It is obvious that you continue to dismiss the opposition as if we have no brains and ignore loads of contrary research in the process.

See creationscience.com if you want to see what a former evolutionary scientist has been saying for decades. Or try some or all of the links on my FR homepage.

“The researchers found that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually structures called framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various time periods, including an extinct sea creature called an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm

Isn’t explaining why, essentially the same thing as substantiating it? I’ve never felt a need to come to a conclusion, as it’s just what I’ve always believed. It seems natural, seeing how each of us are God’s individual creations and what seems OK to some, doesn’t to others.

No, explaining why doesn't substantiate anything. It affirms the basis on which you place your belief. So, you are essentially saying whatever YOU feel is why you believe? You make up your own theory based solely on your feeling, and also derived this belief from a total lack of empirical evidence to show otherwise. I understand this.

Do you discount the history, and eye witness accounts (Bible) of how God explains things? God never intones he gives individuals different truth, so I'm concluding you think the biblical account is wrong?

If you ask me, affirmation and substantiation are close enough to mean pretty much the same.

I’m glad you undestand.

No I don’t discount them and I don’t think the bible is wrong, because to those that believe the bible is the infallible word of God, that is enough. I don’t believe the same.

No I don’t discount them and I don’t think the bible is wrong, because to those that believe the bible is the infallible word of God, that is enough. I don’t believe the same.

Right, but this does not change the reality of whether or not the bible is true. Just because you believe differently does not change the inherent state. This is where logically your premise falls completely apart. The word of God is either reality (true) for all, or it's deception for all. The only conclusion I can draw from this discussion is your definition of "truth" is skewed.

If you actually think reality is different for some based on their belief (subjective) you have entered into the realm of pure nonsense.

I agree it doesn’t change the reality, but since we don’t know whether the bible is true in all things or not (that is where the faith part comes in), it’s moot.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up because I was beginning to think you thought God gives people different "realities," which translate to truth.

I have to have faith to believe the whole bible is true, but I do so based on some pretty strong evidence. If you are intellectually honest, you would have to conclude God's word is established as authentic in the biblical account.

Do you know about Genesis 5?

When speaking of God and spiritual matters, I do believe God gives different truths to us individually. You may call them realities if you wish, or translate them to whatever you want. Why do you believe spiritual truths or realities cannot differ for each person?

No I don’t have to conclude that. There are at least a couple things that are questionable in the bible which cannot be authenticated, but rely solely on leaps of faith. Some people are capable of these leaps and some are not...some people have this spritual reality/truth, some have that spiritual reality/truth.

I do believe God gives different truths to us individually.

Well, you're going to have to give me an example, even if you have to make it up, because this statement on the surface is ridiculous. I want to answer your question but it sounds so convoluted I don't know how? A reality is a truth for everyone, whether or not individuals choose to believe it is the difference. Is that what you're talking about?

Right! There are no doubt events, actions, situations in the bible which are questionable, however, there is also strong enough evidence to conclude God is who he says he is. Such as the Genesis 5 evidence. Fulfilling just 8 prophecies alone goes beyond the scientific realm of what is considered improbable. One thing I can think of right off the bat which requires faith is Mary's pregnancy as a virgin. How would one reconcile this claim?

Best and only example is what I’ve been saying. I’ve already explained that I cannot substantiate this, as it is a self-evidential belief. Sorry, but there’s just no way to prove or disprove this.

I understand you do not know how to answer the question. No problem.

Obviously, I do not believe that any one spiritual reality is a truth for everyone. I’ve also said that a number of times.

There probably is a biological scenario that would allow for the appearance of a virgin birth, but I do not believe in a man coming back from the dead. Since I do not believe in the concept of sin as a transgression against God, I do not believe that any sins have been forgiven, ie a need for salvation. I don’t know how these would be substantiated, they have to be pure leaps of faith for those that do believe in sinning against God. As I’ve also said, some people can make that leap while others cannot...that is a reality/truth.

Obviously, I do not believe that any one spiritual reality is a truth for everyone. I’ve also said that a number of times.

Your statements are sounding like, whatever one believes is "truth." That's ludicrous! This is why I made the statement I believe your definition of "TRUTH" is skewed. You're talking about "belief," not truth.

You believe truth is subjective. In the example of the holocaust deniers they believe a lie, not reality, not truth, however, by the way you are using the word "truth" the deniers have their own "truth" which just because they "believe" nothing happened their "truth" is just as valid. That's sick logic.

As I’ve also said, some people can make that leap while others cannot...that is a reality/truth.

No! Are we arguing different things here?

Belief does not make reality. The Virgin birth either was reality or a lie. A belief/non-belief in it makes it neither real or imagined.

Not whatever, I’ve said spiritual truth a number of times, not just truth. Keep that straight, otherwise you’ll get it all wrong.

Please substitute spritual truth for belief or vice versa if that would be better. To me, the truth you speak of is the same as a belief, mainly because it is subjective and solely dependent on what you believe. Obviously then, I believe spiritual truths/beliefs are subjective and the same.

And what does the holocaust have to do with anything I’ve said? Did you just stick it into the conversation so you could use the word ‘denier’?

No, it is true, some people can make that leap of faith and some cannot.

Remember, spiritual truth/belief...not physical like the virgin birth or an event or the like which can be measured, viewed, experienced by more than one, etc. Of course that either happened or didn’t, but I don’t believe physical truths are the same as spiritual truths.

To me, the truth you speak of is the same as a belief, mainly because it is subjective and solely dependent on what you believe.

No, truth not subjective. Belief is not the same thing as truth. Because people "believe" in LIES all the time! That's why I'm pointing out how convoluted your point seems to be. Truth is truth, it does not inhabit separate realms!

Look, we're discussing whether or not God exist and whether the biblical account of his supposed existence is accurate. The reality is today there is no empirical evidence to PROVE God. (Which I know of) If you want to remain steadfast in your quest to find proof, I'm with you all way...however you know the case, and if you chose to search outside the parameters then a lost cause just might be your only outcome.

Open the eyes of my heart, Lord...

Yes, spiritual truth subjective.

I think belief and truth are the same thing when it is applied to spiritual things. Which is what we are talking about...or at least I am, and what I’ve been saying a number of times.

A non-spiritual lie can be shown to be a lie, can’t it? An event either happened or didn’t. Can you show that a spiritual belief/truth is a lie or not? Just as a fun example...can you honestly show that when a viking dies, he did or did not go to Valhalla? Can you show that there is no happy hunting ground? Can you show that there is or isn’t 70 virgins for Muslims? Can you show or not show that man’s sins have or haven’t been forgiven? Can you show any of these to be lies or truths, without referencing a tome, ballad, scripture or something created by man?

I’m not discussing whether or not God exists, I believe He does. I’m also not looking for any proof of anything. I’m just answering your questions that you have asked about my belief that God instills His truth into each of on an individual basis.

I don’t believe there are any real all-encompassing, universal parameters when discussing spiritual matters outside one’s own belief set. Those parameters are set by your beliefs/truths. That is why I said the truth you speak of is subjective. You make it subjective to certain parameters. Your parameters do not apply to all.

Ok, now that you've explained it this way I can see what you are referring to as spiritual truth. But I think you're using the term very loosely! However, we know from logic all these religions spiritual truths can not be true because they contradict one another. Somebody has to be telling fables or outright LYING. So, it can not logically lead to belief=spiritual truth. Which actually should be more correctly know as "spiritual precept" or "principle."

As I said, words mean things and "Truth" is not subjective no matter how you want to spin it.

As I said, words mean things and "Truth" is not subjective no matter how you want to spin it.

I don't why I wrote this after you explained you were referring too "Spiritual Truth." I agree SP is highly subjective. I was trying to state the difference between SP and Truth and totally Foobarred my intent. I don't think you were trying to "spin" anything.

Just because they appear to man to be contradictory, doesn’t mean they are.

Oh please!! C'mon, you are not going to go there are you? Jesus CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY states HE is I Am. Even answers in the affirmative when questioned. Jesus could not get more genuinely contradictory if he wanted too. Jesus claims to be God, and Muslims claim he is just a prophet, a teacher! Who do you think Jewish Rabbi's think Jesus is? Certainly NOT the Messiah. One thing God CAN NOT do is lie!

Of course we can not comprehend everything God does, but he does tell us "to search the scriptures" so we can understand what he intends for mankind to understand. He gives us free will for a purpose...

I’m sure you believe that, myself and millions of others throughout history haven’t/don’t though. True, Jesus may have and probably did say everything you mentioned and more, but that doesn’t make it valid for everyone. Remember when you said...’just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true’... I guess that applies here also. I’ve never said God lies and I don’t think He does. Who could be worthy of His lie anyway? I’ve said I believe that He gives different information to different people.

Again, as I implied before, you have taken a leap of faith or you were born that way, or for whatever reason, that allows you to believe as you do and you need or use some form of reference for that. Unfortunately, your form of reference also requires a leap of faith to believe that it is sufficient as a reference for everyone. Obviously, it isn’t sufficient for everyone, because mankind is old, and we still don’t agree.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.