Joshua Gurtler is a Category 1, Senior Research Scientist at the USDA, Ag. Research Service in Philadelphia, PA. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia and frequently lectures on Biblical creation and other apologetics issues. gurtljb@gmail.com – 1029 Square Dr. Phoenixville, PA
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 recount God’s creation of the world in six, consecutive 24-hour solar days. Christians and discerning Bible students understand and accept God’s clear teaching on this subject. Even some non-believing Bible students readily admit that Genesis 1 and 2 teach that all nature was created in six 24-hour days. Dr. James Barr, Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, who did not accept the inerrancy of the Bible, said: “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24-hours we now experience” (as quoted in Grigg, 1993). Nevertheless, some reject the clear Genesis teaching in favor of theistic evolution.
Theistic Evolution vs. the Six Literal Days of Creation
Theistic evolution rejects a literal interpretation of the creation week recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis and asserts that God either allowed or guided the evolutionary processes of Darwin. The entertainment industry, mass media, and even public schools and universities have made popular the myth that all credible scientists and scholars accept evolution as fact. Thus, many believers have been coerced into thinking they too must accept some form of this false teaching in order to be considered scientifically and socially relevant. “One important reason, however, for the current popularity of this false doctrine is that Christians have become intimidated. They have been intimidated by fancy ‘facts,’ impressive credentials, and flowery words and phrases set forth by some in the scientific community. They have become victims of propaganda campaigns which teach that ‘anyone entitled to a judgment’ believes in evolution, that ‘all reputable scientists’ accept evolution, that ‘belief in evolution is a part of the learning process in all thinking persons,’ and so on” (Thompson and Jackson, 1992b, 91).
The truth is that there are multitudes of scientists around the world who reject the evolutionary premise of neo-Darwinism. Some of these individuals are members of various organizations such as the Access Research Network, Answers in Genesis, Apologetics Press, Creation Research Society, Creation Science Foundation, Institute for Creation Research, and Intelligent Design Network. What we must never forget as Christians is that regardless of what the so-called scientists, experts, and authorities avow, God’s word is still the final and sole authority regarding our origin. Scientific theories are in a constant state of flux, undergoing modification, and even frequently disproved and discarded. God’s word never changes, God’s word should never be modified, and God’s word can never be disproven. You cannot always rely upon secular science. You can always depend upon the word of God. “Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). “Every word of God is pure… Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5, 6).
Inorganic Evolution vs. Six Literal Days of Creation
All known life forms derive their energy from and are composed of the element carbon, which makes up organic matter. The word “organic” is defined as “of, relating to, or derived from living organisms.” Darwinism typically deals with this type of evolution; that is, the “molecule to man” evolution of living creatures. However, many who would deny that teaching sometimes compromise the literal account of creation in the book of Genesis in another way. They reject the myth that organic living beings evolved from atom to Adam over billions of years, yet they accept the doctrine of inorganic evolution – the belief that the earth, our solar system, and our universe evolved over untold billions of years prior to life being placed on this planet (ca. 4.58 billion years ago). Although the Genesis account clearly teaches a so-called “creation week,” many compromising Bible students are willing to discard the literal truth of the first and second chapters of the Bible in order to be in agreement with secular scientific dogma. Notice the following quote by one compromising Bible expert regarding a literal six day creation: “This seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet earth was created several billion years ago” (Archer, 1994, pp. 196, 197). Thus, more authority and credibility is given to man’s hypotheses than to God’s infallible intellect. “It is as if these theologians view ‘nature’ as a ‘67th book of the Bible,’ albeit with more authority than the 66 written books” (Batten, 2003, p. 35).
Some Christians have even embraced the idea that the Bible should be interpreted by science rather than science by the Bible. If one simply considers many of the wrong ideas science has embraced over the years, it will become abundantly clear that fallible science should always be subject to God’s holy and inerrant word, not the other way around.
Whereas scientific ideas are continually being disproven, God’s word has not been proven wrong and has not changed. Yes, now we are told that we must interpret the Bible according to modern secular scientific thought. Who can believe it? “The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Pet. 1:24-25). “It is amazing that men will accept long, complicated imaginative theories and reject the truth given to Moses by the Creator Himself” (Riegle, 1962, p. 24). It is a pity that those who claim to be a “guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes” (Rom. 2:19, 20), are not satisfied to simply, “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).
Dr. Terry Mortenson wrote an article citing twelve renowned Biblical scholars who all believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not because the Biblical text demands it, but because they believe secular “science” is the final authority over the plain teaching of Genesis chapter 1. Dr. Mortenson states,
The Christian scholars cited above and many other evangelical scholars and leaders during the past 200 years all say basically the same thing in different words. In essence, they are teaching the church that science is the final authority in determining the correct interpretation of some or all of Genesis 1–11, or at least that science is the final authority in determining that the young-earth view must be wrong. Therefore, they think, Bible scholars are free to advocate all kinds of alternative interpretations, no matter how exegetically weak they may be (Mortenson, 2010).
As an example, Dr. Mortenson quotes J.P. Moreland who says,
The date of creation is a difficult question, but on exegetical grounds alone, the literal twenty-four-hour-day view is better. However, since the different progressive creationist views are plausible exegetical options on hermeneutical grounds alone, then if science seems to point to a universe of several billions of years, it seems allowable to read Genesis in this light (Moreland, 1998).
So, Dr. Moreland concludes that the interpretation of Genesis must be subservient to secular science. Again, man wins, and the Bible loses.
One of the most common tenets of inorganic theistic evolution is that each day in the six days of the Genesis creation account was not a literal 24-hour day, but a vast stretch of time composed of thousands, millions, or billions of years. This is commonly called the day-age hypothesis, in which all six days of creation put together comprised over 13.8 billion years.
Why Inorganic Evolution (or the Day-Age View) Must Be Rejected in Favor of Six Literal Days of Creation
Although it is sometimes tempting to fall in with the crowd to gain their approval, sincere service to our Lord and Savior demands that we must adhere to the truth of His word. “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (Psa. 119:130). The following are a few of the many reasons why we should believe that inorganic evolution and the day-age theory are wrong, that the earth did not evolve for billions of years prior to man’s introduction, and that the word “day” in the Genesis creation account refers to a normal 24-hour period and not extended ages of time.
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 state that God created the world in six days.
The word “day” in Genesis 1 and 2 is from the Hebrew word yom, which is used 1,284 times in the Old Testament. Although the word, in rare instances, can refer to a period of time (e.g., during the day of Abraham Lincoln”) this fact is clearly borne out in the context of the passage and typically is not preceded by a numerical reference (see Gen. 2:4; Ps. 95:8, 9; and Jer. 46:10). Whenever yom follows a numeral in non-prophetic writings in the Old Testament (such as in Genesis) it always has reference to a 24-hour solar day. One biblical scholar noted, “We have failed to find a single example of the use of the word ‘day’ in the entire scripture where it means other than a period of 24-hours when modified by the use of the numerical adjective” (Williams, 1965, p. 10).
One survey of Hebrew scholars in nine prominent universities conducted by a Canadian anthropologist corroborated the Biblical 24-hour day position. The professors were asked, “Do you understand the Hebrew yom, as used in Genesis 1, accompanied by a numeral, to be properly translated as (a) a day as commonly understood, or (b) an age, or (c) an age or a day without preference for either?” Of the seven of nine Hebrew scholars that responded to the survey, all affirmed that yom in Genesis 1 was referring to a normal 24-hour solar day (as quoted in Surburg, 1959, p. 61).
With regard to the word “day” being an age of incalculable length, notice Genesis 1:14: “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years.’” If the days in Genesis 1 are ages, then what are the seasons and years? Longer ages? If day in verse 14 means an age, then what does the word night mean? In reference to this, Marcus Dods in the Expositor’s Bible says, “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean a period of 24-hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless” (1948, pp. 4, 5).
Moses taught these were 24-hour days in Exodus 20:11. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” And again in Exodus 31:17, “for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” The word Moses used for “days” is the Hebrew word yamim. Yamim appears over 700 times in the Old Testament and in each instance in non-prophetic literature (such as in Genesis) it always carries the meaning of a 24-hour period.
The days in Genesis 1 and 2 should be understood as normal 24-hour days because they are accompanied by the phrase, “morning and evening” in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. Apologist Dr. Henry M. Morris stated, “The Hebrew words for ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ occur over 100 times each in the Old Testament and always in a literal sense” (Morris, 1970, p. 58, emphasis in the original).
How could God have made the fact that there were six 24-hour days of creation any clearer? What else could God have said? “Six days and on the seventh he rested.” “Morning and evening.” “The second day.” “The third day.” “The fourth day,” and so on.
If the Holy Spirit, through Moses, had intended to mean ages instead of 24-hour days in Genesis 1, He could have employed one of the Hebrew terms for long periods of time: olam or qedem.
Consider this. If this planet was allowed to evolve for 4.6 billion years after which God created mankind, man would have been created at the end of creation, wouldn’t he? Imagine that all 4.6 billion years of the assumed evolutionary time were represented by one 60 minute hour. In this illustration, animals would only have appeared in the last ten minutes, while humans would have only arrived on the scene in the last 1/100 second. Our Lord and Savior Jesus counters this idea in Mark 10:6 by saying, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” But, if the earth is 4.6 billion years old, then man was created 4.5 billion years too late to be considered present at the beginning of creation. On the other hand, if man was created on the sixth 24-hour day of creation, and the elapsed time from Adam till the present day is, let’s say for sake of argument, 6,000 years, then man has been around for 99.999998% of the world’s existence. This would make the Lord’s statement that man has been on earth since “the beginning of the creation” logical. Conversely, had the earth existed for 4.6 billion years, with man present only the last ~10,000 years, that would have man existing during the last 0.000217% of the world’s existence, making Jesus’ statement that we have been here since “the beginning of the creation” inaccurate and nonsensical. Further, Paul reiterated Christ’s statement in Romans 1:20, 21 in declaring that mankind has been able to witness the power of God since “the creation of the world.”
Conclusion
Could God have taken 4-5 billion years to create the earth if he had chosen? He certainly could have. In fact, He could have taken 4.6 trillion years or 4.6 nanoseconds. However, the Genesis account of a six literal 24-hour day creation is unchangeable. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested” (Exod. 31:17).
One might ask, “Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis important?” Here is why. If one does not correctly understand and interpret the first two chapters of the Bible (e.g., a 6 literal 24-hour day creation week, a literal first man and first woman, and a literal serpent that tempted the woman), what is to prevent him from being led down the slippery slope of questioning all other literal statements in the Bible? In fact, some Bible scholars, theologians, and Bible students have followed this course and in addition to denying the literal account of Genesis 1 and 2, they now deny the parting of the Red Sea. They deny that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. They deny the virgin birth of our Savior. They deny the resurrection of the Christ, and they deny that the New Testament writers wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Even the denominational author and teacher, Dr. John MacArthur, recognizes and bemoans this fact in the following statement:
In other words, if you reject the creation account in Genesis, you have no basis for believing the Bible at all. If you doubt or explain away the Bible’s account of the six days of creation, where do you start with Genesis 3, which explains the origin of sin…? Or maybe you don’t sign on until sometime after chapter 6, because the Flood is invariably questioned by scientists, too. Or perhaps you find the Tower of Babel too hard to reconcile with the linguists’ theories about how languages originated and evolved. So maybe you start taking the Bible as literal history beginning with the life of Abraham. But when you get to Moses’ plagues against Egypt, will you deny those, too? What about the miracles of the New Testament? Is there any reason to regard any of the supernatural elements of biblical history as anything other than poetic symbolism?… If we’re worried about appearing ‘unscientific’ in the eyes of naturalists, we’re going to have to reject a lot more than Genesis 1-3” (2001, p. 44, emphasis in the original).
If understanding the beginnings of mankind is not crucial to our understanding of the Bible, then nothing else is.
References
Archer, G.L. (1994), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press).
Batten, Don, ed. (2003), The Revised and Expanded Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Dods, Marcus (1948), “Genesis” in The Expositor’s Bible, Vol. 1, ed. W.R. Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Grigg, Russell (1993), “Should Genesis be Taken Literally?” Creation, 16[1]:38-41, December.
MacArthur, John (2001), The Battle for the Beginning: The Bible on the Creation and the Fall of Adam (Nashville, TN: W. Publishing Group, a division of Thomas Nelson Inc.).
Moreland, J. P. (1998), “Scaling the Secular City.” Grand Rapids: Baker, 219-20.
Morris, Henry (1970), Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Riegle, D.D. (1962), Creation or Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Surburg, R.R. (1959), “In the Beginning God Created” in: Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, ed. P.A. Zimmerman (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Thompson, Bert, and Wayne Jackson (1992), Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Williams, Arthur F. (1965) in Creation Research Annual (Ann Arbor, MI: Creation Research Society).