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 wonder if your parents felt that way.

I invented my parents, just like I invented "you".

"You", of course, are just words on a screen and like Schroeder's cat, neither alive nor dead, fish nor fowl, until I actually meet the image* that appears to be "you" :-)

* And you will be just an image until I shake your hand or you punch my face, in which case, you will also be a sensation of touch invented in my brain. And if you kill me, then I will either go to an "afterworld" disbelieving in you, or I will cease to exist never knowing. In short, your actual existence is impossible to "prove" to me in any human terms. That is why the Bible promises to eliminate solipsism: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor. 13:12

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.

Vayehi erev, vayehi boqer...

Gen 1:13

Meanwhile...

Until Erev boqer, 2003 from a sign/signal/letter...

Until Erev boqer, 2003 from a sign/signal/letter... ,

That is to say

ad erev boqer, alpayim u'shlosh meot

Dan 8:14

Meot, plural of hundred, but more to the point, from beginning to end, from a to z as it were:

מאות mem (מ) "from"

ot (אות) sign/signal/letter or

mem (מ) "from"

alef (א) and (ו) tav (ת)

Idiomatically me alef ve'ad tav

"from a to z"

The primary problem with evolution is that it often employs reverse logic.

1) The fossil record shows a trail of extinctions yet few if any missing links are found/proven. Certainly not anywhere near the number of missing links that Darwin himself said would be needed to keep his theory from completely falling apart.

2) Beneficial mutations are far out-numbered by neutral and destructive mutations (1 good mutation for every 250,000 iirc). Once enough destructive mutations accumulate within a population extinction follows quickly.

3) Over 100 natural clocks indicate a young earth and universe, all far below anything approaching even 1 million years (see my links page).

Simply put within observable/factual science only micro-evolution is proven within kinds but devolution and eventual extinction among all life-forms will be the eventual outcome.

The fossil record shows a trail of extinctions yet few if any missing links are found/proven. Certainly not anywhere near the number of missing links that Darwin himself said would be needed to keep his theory from completely falling apart.

Fossils, by nature, are relatively rare in the first place. A dead animal thrown out in the open is most likely not going to end up being a fossil. Considering that, the available fossil evidence for evolution is certainly not "missing" or scant. I don't see this particular issue as anything approaching even close to making Darwin's theory "fall apart".

Beneficial mutations are far out-numbered by neutral and destructive mutations (1 good mutation for every 250,000 iirc). Once enough destructive mutations accumulate within a population extinction follows quickly.

The Egyptian royal family's recorded history, and the recently observed phenomenon of significantly higher rates of genetic abnormalities in the Pakistani community in Britain, primarily due to cousin-marriage, contradicts the above assertion.

Over 100 natural clocks indicate a young earth and universe, all far below anything approaching even 1 million years.

No scientist of repute even dares to assert that the Earth is less than a million years old, without seriously damaging his or her career and academic standing. Even astronomical data, about the position of distant stars several dozen million light years away and more, proves to show that the universe is certainly older than a million years.

1) You contradict yourself regarding the fossil record - are they rare/scant or not? Ever heard of stasis in the fossil record - life-forms that appear and exit the fossil record with no change? How about ‘hundreds of million years old’ fossils recently found in modern days - the coelacanth, wollemi pine, etc? There are plenty of contradictions in the old fossil record.

2) Higher genetic rates of abnormalities/mutations due to ‘cousin-marriage’ in the present day does not prove the same would apply ages ago when life-forms were newly formed. In fact, if you assume initial conditions w/ zero genetic mutations there is accepted scientific conjecture indicating just the opposite.

3) It is possible to arrive at 2 separate ages for the universe since this is historical science too. Science for which you can not re-produce the initial big-bang conditions, does not allow you to record any comparable time measurements, nor any unique effects upon the atoms/elements. It is fun to conjecture though. Perhaps you heard of Dr. Russell Humphreys? He is a highly reputed scientist in many circles and authored a book entitled:

Starlight and Time.

Modern day science when practiced historically (rather than what can be proven systematically through repeated trial and error) can allow consensus to buy-in to almost anything - i.e AGW. I hope you weren’t snookered by the consensus for global warming science!?

I don't see the contradiction in my previous replies. Kindly elaborate.

As for stasis, why should it contradict the theory of evolution when circumstances don't force a particular species to change? Living fossils exist to this date, and is consistent with the ToE. The rate of change of a species is neither linear, nor of uniform pace.

Assuming your "immaculate original genetics" hypothesis to hold true, then by this time, every living form on the planet would be beset with grotesque and malignent genetic abnormalities, by simply keeping with the gradual progress of genetic deformation from the initial point. However, this is not the case, except during inbreeding, and both the exceptions are only capable of being explained by the ToE where the genetic stock is pruned by natural selection.

Starlight and Time.

Modern day science when practiced historically (rather than what can be proven systematically through repeated trial and error) can allow consensus to buy-in to almost anything - i.e AGW.

If that is the case, then hundreds of thousands of scientific applications involving the consistency of the speed of light would not be possible. Examples: Radio astronomy, GPS navigation, cellular telephony, satellite communication. Conjectures are fun, except that they don't hold up to practical use very well, if at all.

I hope you weren’t snookered by the consensus for global warming science!?

No, not at all. Neither do I take in desert nomad mythology hook, line and sinker.

Quit chopping up scripture. God saw that it was “VERY GOOD” which shows that it was a lot closer to perfect (if you wish to argue that case) then not perfect. And if you want to argue that this doesn’t mean perfect fine. But it sure can’t EVER include MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years of death and torture.

Using Leviticus 25:1-4 doesn’t apply because in Lev. the discussion isn’t about the creation but about how to manage the land. Exodus IS talking about the creation week and therefore applies. So YOUR argument holds no water.

Your problem is you see millions and billions of years of evolution/creation (whatever) and your gonna make it fit with scripture no matter what.

God did create the universe and He did it in 6 days just as the Bible says. If you can’t believe that fine but don’t try to justify your lack of belief by twisting the Bible to fit your theory.

“truthfinder9” Has a major problem with Scripture, that cannot be explained away by mythologising the creation account in the Bible.

He apparently stands in the long train of many who, unlike Jesus and the apostles, undermine the clear teachings of Scripture by trying to adjust it to fit their view of the natural world, choosing the statements of “scientists” over the statements of God.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

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.