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.

So what we have through “evolution” is:

1. Life from non-life.

Well, *FLASH* + *POOF* doesn't quite explain the origin of life.

2. Spontaneous generation of irreducibly complex systems.

Give an example.

3. Sight from non-sight.

Mechanism explained by evolution.

4. Flight from non-flight.

Mechanism explained by evolution.

5. Intelligence from non-intelligence.

Mechanism explained by evolution.

6. Aesthetic appreciation from previously non-aesthetic beings.

Could you elaborate?

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.

To call it "pure chance", is to precisely insult your own intelligence by letting poetic metaphors force you to disregard a distinct possibility. Evolution is not akin to the mere toss of a coin. Each intermittent step, is dependent on the previous. The choices available for operation are basically at the molecular level - implying billions to trillions of interactions every moment, for a useful result to arise out of, in a time span stretching across 4 billion years. The Avogadro number, a quantity describing the number of molecules in a mole of a substance (1 mole of carbon is 12 grams) is 10 raised to 23, just to have a feel of the scale here.

Can you, with any degree of certainty, say that there was not such a drastic circumstance in any evolutionary bottleneck? No, you can't.

At what point do you define a species, James? There will be an original breeding pair, unless you're going to further complicate matters to an even more improbable degree, and claim that the species arose simultaneously in different locales, yet somehow "found" one another, in order to avoid inbreeding to such a level as to be deemed acceptable.

Or, on the other hand, you could entertain the notion that the first breeding pair were put here, whether you accept a religious explanation or an irreligious one, which would mean that the genetic material necessary for 6 billion progeny were present from the outset.

Sounds rather simpler and therefore more likely to me.

You might be able to use the immensity of numbers to confuse others, like “billions” of years (time), and gadzillions of interactions (chance), with no guiding intelligence (the impersonal), however, it won’t work with me.

1. The burden of proof is on you to explain how life came from non-life. Would you please do so and cite your empirical evidence?

2. An irreducibly complex system is one that requires all its parts to work. If one part is missing, the whole system fails. Like an eye. I note the following argument: “Since Darwin’s day, the eye’s ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.” How convenient — just believe — since the evidence is not there. It COULD have happened.

3., 4., 5. Could you demonstrate the development of sight, flight, and intelligence empirically, as you are the one claiming scientific supremacy? Or are you just asserting it COULD have happened. I’d like you to PROVE it DID happen.

6. Please explain the universal religious nature of man, including the scientific and atheistic communities.

You posted: “To call it “pure chance”, is to precisely insult your own intelligence by letting poetic metaphors force you to disregard a distinct possibility. Evolution is not akin to the mere toss of a coin. Each intermittent step, is dependent on the previous. The choices available for operation are basically at the molecular level - implying billions to trillions of interactions every moment, for a useful result to arise out of, in a time span stretching across 4 billion years. The Avogadro number, a quantity describing the number of molecules in a mole of a substance (1 mole of carbon is 12 grams) is 10 raised to 23, just to have a feel of the scale here.”

So you would call evolution “pure chance” to the exponential power.

Instead of one toss of the coin (50/50), you postulate millions, billions, trillions, etc. tosses of the coin with the result of life spontaneously generating and “beneficial” changes taking place — all with no guidance or “force” pushing things in a “positive” direction.

Sounds like “pure chance” to me. If you (because of your intelligence) disagree, could you please explain to me why there is order instead of disorder, and evolution instead of devolution. What is this “mechanism” explained by evolution. Does the mechanism drive evolution, or does evolution drive the mechanism?

As I said, you have faith in the random, or you are being hypocritical.

There will be an original breeding pair, unless you're going to further complicate matters to an even more improbable degree, and claim that the species arose simultaneously in different locales, yet somehow "found" one another, in order to avoid inbreeding to such a level as to be deemed acceptable.

Species don't separate with sharp boundaries. The process is too gradual to demarcate any meaningful boundary depicting drastic genetic separation between parent and offspring.

This is precisely what I meant by saying that it is a result of the accumulation of favourable traits.

It is akin to how poodles and wolves are basically the same, genetically, yet different.

Simple.

The earth is not under energy isolation, for your Second Law of Thermodynamics implication to hold. The sun pours enough energy onto this planet, to allow order from disorder to occur.

Let me illustrate this characteristic of chance and probability you speak of, assuming the mythology of Adam and Eve to be true.

Suppose you have an individual, named James, born and living in Los Angeles, today. Let us assume that James won the lottery last week. A million dollars. Now let us break the process that lead him to winning this, into parts:

For James to have won the lottery, he needed to buy the right ticket. A matter of 1 in millions, if not more.

For James to buy the right ticket, he needed to do things in exactly the same manner as he did, that day. Walk the particular steps to the store. Make the particular decisions every single moment of that day, all out of innumerable options. Now this is just for James buying the right ticket.

If you go back into James' history, he'd need to have grown up and made decisions every single moment after his birth, in just the right way, until he was old enough to purchase the ticket on his own. Out of all possibilities James could have explored all through his life, what are the odds?

Then you need to go back to James' parents. How they conceived him, how they met, how they themselves existed. Out of all the options each parent had, what are the odds?

That's just one generation. How many generations between James' parents, and your Adam and Eve? How many decisions played between the intermediary generations, that lead to these descendents following the paths that lead to James' birth in Los Angeles?

Remember, the total probabilities are not additive; they are one-out-of-the-product-of-all-odds from start to finish.

Now, don't people win lotteries to this day? What are the true odds? Mind-boggling.

According to your “simple” logic, the odds are astronomical that you, a descendant of the biblical Adam and Eve (whether you believe it or not), will randomly be sitting at a keyboard to reply to this post.

Of course, you can still keep throwing out “astronomical” number figures to illustrate the “possibility” that your faith in randomness has some basic in logic and empirical science.

Until you can demonstrate, empirically, that life came/comes from non-life, you have the freedom to choose faith in your god of evolution, as I choose faith in my God as revealed in Christian Scripture.

Care to offer any experimental proof?

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.