Science and Creationism The Days of Creation
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom 11:33)
Site Index North Forest

The Days of Creation

by John Shepard

August, 1999

Table of Contents

Introduction

Uses of the word "day"

Evening and morning

Figurative understanding of Genesis 1

Conclusion

The 24-Hour Day | Old Earth Creationism | Creationism


Introduction

Proponents of the young earth creation model insist that the word day in the first chapter of Genesis when interpreted literally refers to a time period of 24 hours.

I will show that this understanding of the usage of the word day is not based on a literal interpretation at all, but is rather based on a figurative interpretation of the passage. Here is the passage.

Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

The four Hebrew words and their Strong's designation:

There are two key points:

Science and Creationism | North Forest | Top of page


Uses of the word "day"

Here are some different ways that the word day is used in the book of Genesis.

Science and Creationism | North Forest | Top of page


Evening and morning

Gen 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

It is tempting to assume that the word day in this passage is a 24 hour day. But we need to be cautious because as the examples in the previous section show, the only times the word day clearly and unambiguously means a 24 hour day are (1) when it is in the context of other days, or (2) when referring to a particular day of the week. Whenever the word day is being referred to in the context of parts of a day such as morning, evening, light, cool of the day, darkness and nighttime, a 24 hour day is not what is in mind.

The usual assumption is that the formula

...there was evening, and there was morning -- the XYZ day

can only mean that the days were 24 hour days, and at first sight this seems to be the logical conclusion. But there is something very peculiar about this formula which suggests that the common conclusion is not the correct one.


If this formula had instead been

...God did these things on day XYZ and it took a whole day and a whole night

then it would have been clear that the day was a 24 hour day.


If this formula had instead been

...there was daytime, and there was nighttime -- the XYZ day

then it probably would have been referring to a 24 hour day because the daytime and the nighttime are the two parts of the day which together make up a 24 hour day. However, even then, there would still be some uncertainty.


The formula

...there was evening, and there was morning -- the XYZ day

is simply not literal. This is a result of the use of the words evening and morning since evening and morning together do not make up a complete day; there is also midday, afternoon and nighttime. There is ambiguity in the phrase.

We should also notice that the words evening and morning in the order they are given correspond with the starting and ending points for that part of a 24 hour day called night. Let's look at the words evening and morning a bit further:

Evening

Morning

Science and Creationism | North Forest | Top of page


Figurative understanding of Genesis 1

...there was evening, and there was morning -- the XYZ day

Here are some possible ways in which this formula could be interpreted. I'm not going to address the creation models suggested by these.

Science and Creationism | North Forest | Top of page


Conclusion

While the six days of creation certainly could be 24 hour days, the passages in Genesis do not require that this is the meaning and, in fact, the usage of words and the context would appear to strongly suggest that the days of creation were not 24 hour days.

In order to support the idea that the days of creation are 24 hour days we must interpret these passages figuratively rather that literally.

Young earth creation scientists would have us believe that their view is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one. However, as I have shown, their view is not literal at all but requires a figurative interpretation of the repeated formula in Genesis chapter one verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31.

Once we understand that we have to interpret portions of Genesis chapter one figuratively we must then seek to discover interpretations that are true to the text. But that is beyond the scope of this article.

Science and Creationism | North Forest | Top of page


© Copyright 2007 by John Shepard


Links: North Forest | Science and Creationism | Journey | email us

Please feel free to email:  js16@northforest.org 
 http://www.northforest.org/ScienceAndCreationism/daysofcreation.html Science and Creationism
 Revised: Oct 28, 2001