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.

“Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 10^9 years old. The universe is ~14 x 10^9 years old.”

How about “the earth appears to be...”

The precision of nature argues, incontrovertably, that it was engineered and designed.

They tore him down(crucified), and he was rebuilt in three days(resurrected).

Right. If the Jewish Temple crumbled could God build it back up in three days? Does the statement Jesus made not hold TRUE for both Temples? The reason I'm pointing this out is because those gathered around mockingly (I envision) questioned the statement because they though he was in fact talking about the Jewish temple. What's ironic about this is because he was God of course, he could have raised it back up in three days even if he was talking about the Jewish temple.

I feel like I'm the only one in this world that's sees the true irony of this verse...

JOHN 2 -
13The Jewish Passover was near, so Jesus went to Jerusalem.
14He found those who were selling cattle, sheep, and pigeons in the temple courtyard. He also found moneychangers sitting there.
15He made a whip from small ropes and threw everyone with their sheep and cattle out of the temple courtyard. He dumped the moneychangers' coins and knocked over their tables.
16He told those who sold pigeons, "Pick up this stuff, and get it out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"
17His disciples remembered that Scripture said, "Devotion for your house will consume me."
18The Jews reacted by asking Jesus, "What miracle can you show us to justify what you're doing?"
19Jesus replied, "Tear down this temple, and I'll rebuild it in three days."
20The Jews said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple. Do you really think you're going to rebuild it in three days?"
21But the temple Jesus spoke about was his own body.
22After he came back to life, his disciples remembered that he had said this. So they believed the Scripture and this statement that Jesus had made.

So what guesstimate would you have from Adam to Noah, in our current 365+ day years?

And precisely where, in your view, does the Bible start being literally believable?

Did a flood kill all but eight humans and “creatures” other than those on the ark? Genesis 7:21-23

Did the sun stand still in the sky? Joshua 10:12, 13

Was Jesus born of a virgin? Isaian 7:14

Was Jonah 3 days in a fish belly? Jonah 1:17

I do not believe we are capable, as we are humans and He is God. Human logic or not.

I'm sorry, that's just ignorant. If you can't understand what God means how do we follow his precepts? How do you actually become Christian if you can't logically understand what belief in Christ entails?

I understand his ways are higher than ours, but in no way does it mean God does not use logic so we can understand. He invented it precisely so we could understand!

"I"A bigger problem would be of 6+ billion individuals descending out of one mating pair, primarily through incest, initially.

Wouldn't that also be the problem if evolution happened. Or is it now part of the theory that multiple organisms mutated over time into the same animal. So not only did Mankind come from random selection, but the same selection had to happen to multiple species at the exact same time, or the first pair would have been the "adam and eve" and had the same problem.

That’s not how it works. It’s an accumulation of mutations that lead to new features, over several individuals.

It’s not like two parents will produce a mutated offspring with a larger brain or so. It’s gradual favouring of mutations that lead to slightly higher intelligence (say), that accumulate through natural selection, over several generations, that lead to the changes.

I can’t or won’t understand it, but how could a one in a billion happening, happen more than once...and in such a manner as to have the two things be compatible?.....just a question that rolls around in my head. Like how could two neanderthals, or two cro-magnons, or two homo-sapiens exist at the same time? Only if the first life forms evolved simultaneously and mutated simultaneously....I don’t know, it takes more effort to believe in random selection, life starting from a chemical soup, than from a guiding force.

Mutations are more common than you think.

It is minute mutations that lead to better abilities, being favoured over time, that brings about the overall change, in a span of millions of years.

It’s not a “one-in-a-billion” happening as you imagine, but something far more frequent. That is how bacteria are able to overcome antibiotics that used to wipe all of them out, before. For more complex organisms, the mutations accumulate based on how they are favoured, during mating.

“Guiding force” is fine, but when it is explicitly detailed in terms of flashes, magic and smoke, it gets too absurd to even consider as possible reality.

You posted:

That’s not how it works. It’s an accumulation of mutations that lead to new features, over several individuals.

So what we have through “evolution” is:

1. Life from non-life.

2. Spontaneous generation of irreducibly complex systems.

3. Sight from non-sight.

4. Flight from non-flight.

5. Intelligence from non-intelligence.

6. Aesthetic appreciation from previously non-aesthetic beings.

And all through “time, plus chance, plus the impersonal” (Francis Schaeffer).

Anyone who believes that has faith in “random,” or is a total hypocrite in what they assert, believing none of it. I would rather have faith in God, even though He transcends my intelligence. At least He doesn’t insult it.

I think our human logic allows us to have these conversations, not to understand what God is all about.

That makes no sense!! If you can not use logic to ascertain what God has decreed, how do you know whether or not your adhering to his precepts properly? How would you actually repent or believe in Jesus? Now, most certainly there are things we definitely do not have the mindset to "understand" about God, and even things I'm sure he hides from us, but to suggest human logic does not allow us to comprehend his way is highly obtuse.

How is this a problem unique to Creationism? There's going to be an original breeding pair regardless.

You mean, at a time when species evolved to develop sexual reproduction, in the case of the evolutionary model?

If yes, it still is not as susceptible to genetic damage as the Adam and Eve model, because sexual reproduction originated in much simpler organisms. In addition to that, a pool of genetic material was already present, for the species to recover from the damaging effects of mutations.

With a species as complex as humans, this route simply isn't possible, if there is only one pair, to begin with.

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.