The Days of Genesis

[adam149]

People often claim that Genesis does not argue in favor of a literal, historical view of the days of creation. I will quote below some of the theologians and experts who disagree based from my own research. Feel free to reuse these quotes when the question pops up again.

Martin Luther: (as cited in Plass, E.M., What Martin Luther Says, a Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian)

The Days of Creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.

Elsewhere Luther wrote:

When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.

John Calvin: (McNeil, J.T. (ed.), Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, p. 160-161, 182)

albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years … God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.

Charles Spurgeon: (The Sword and the Trowel, p. 197)

We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.

Gleason Archer, not creationist: (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 196)

From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days

James Barr, neo-orthodox non-creationist: (personal communications)

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 (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Marcus Dods, liberal theologian: (Expositor’s Bible, p. 4)

if, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.

Andrew Steinmann: (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 45(4) )

Having an evening and a morning amounts to having one full day. Hence the following equation is what Gen 1:5 expresses: Evening + morning = one day.

Therefore, by using a most unusual grammatical construction, Genesis 1
is defining what a day is. This is especially needed in this verse, since “day”
is used in two senses in this one verse. Its first occurrence means the time
during a daily cycle that is illuminated by daylight (as opposed to “night”).
. . .

It would appear as if the text is very carefully crafted so that an alert
reader cannot read it as “the first day.” Instead, by omission of the article it must be read as “one day,” thereby defining a day as something akin to a
twenty-four hour solar period with light and darkness and transitions between day and night, even though there is no sun until the fourth day. This would then explain the lack of articles on the second through fifth days. Another evening and morning constituted “a” (not “the”) second day. Another evening and morning made a third day, and so forth. On the sixth day, the article finally appears. But even here the grammar is strange, since there is no article on µwy, as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was also the culminating day of creation. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to as y[ybvh µwy (Gen 2:3), with lack of an article on µwy. This, also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.

Lewis Berkhof: (Systematic Theology, p. 154)

In its primary meaning the word yom denotes a natural day; and it is a good rule in exegesis, not to depart from the primary meaning of a word, unless this is required by the context.

Robert Dabney: (Systematic Theology, p. 255)

The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation by describing the days as comprised of its natural parts, morning and evening.

And again: (Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 254-255)

The narrative seems historical, and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense. . . .The natural day is [the] literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the ordinary one, when no such demand exists in the context.

Gerhard Hastel: (Origins, 21(1) )

This triple interlocking connection of singular usage, joined by a numeral, and the temporal definition of 'evening and morning,' keeps the creation 'day' the same throughout the creation account. It also reveals
that time is conceived as linear and events occur within it successively. To depart from the numerical, consecutive linkage and the 'evening and morning' boundaries in ushc direct language would mean to take extreme liberty with the plain and direct meaning of the Hebrew language.

Edward J. Young: (Studies in Genesis One, p. 100)

If Moses had intended to teach a non-chronological view of the days, it is indeed strange that he went out of his way, as it were, to emphasize chronology and sequence. . . .It is questionable whether serious
exegesis of Genesis One would it itself lead anyone to adopt a non-chronological view of the days for the simple reason that everything in the text militates against it.

And elsewhere (p. 58)

Man is to 'remember' the Sabbath day, for God has instituted it.... The human week derives validity and significance from the creative week. The fourth commandment constitutes a decisive argument against any non-chronological scheme of the six days of Genesis One.

Derek Kidner: (Genesis, p. 54-55)

The march of the days is too majestic a process to carry no implication of ordered sequence; it also seems over-subtle to adopt a view of the passage which discounts one of the primary impressions it makes on the ordinary reader.

Wayne Grudem: (Systematic Theology, p. 303)

The implication of chronological sequence in the narrative is almost inescapable.

Gary North: (The Dominion Covenant, p. 13)

How any serious scholar can read such a story into the plain words of Genesis 1 is baffling. Why should we tamper with the plain teaching of the Bible in this fashion? Are we naive enough to believe that if Christians. . . [compromise with evolution], modern evolutionists . . . are going to think Christianity might just be plausible after all? Are we trying to buy a little academic respectability by means of this sort of exegesis? Modern science holds that the earth is a relatively late development, possibly only five billion years old, in a universe at least ten billion years old. What good do we think we will accomplish by ignoring the words of Genesis 1 . . .? If we are inevitably going to be looked at as fools for holding to biblical revelation, which is unquestionably the case (I Cor. 1:19-21), then why not at least be consistent, straightforward, more offensive fools—fools thoroughly committed to this foolish revelational faith, fools untarnished by the pseudo-wisdom of the world? Would anyone have bothered to invent . . . [compromises] had he not been confronted with some version of evolution, which he then decided to conform to, at least partially, in order not to appear unrespectable?[ref] Let us side with biblical language and cease our pathetic, unrealizable quest for academic respectability within the world of secular humanistic scholarship.

Victor Hamilton, liberal: (Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 54)

Whoever wrote Gen. 1 believed he was talking
about literal days.

Robert Reymond: (A New Systematic Theology For the Christian Faith, p. 392)

I can discern no reason, either from Scripture or from the human sciences, for departing from the view that the days of Genesis were ordinary twenty-four-hour days.

Elsewhere (p. 396):

. . .there is no reason to believe that the universe and the earth in particular are billions of years old either . . .the geological upheaval at the time of the Flood (see Gen. 7:11; 2 Pet. 3:6) could also account for much of the geologist's "evidence" for an ancient earth which is exhibited in his "geological column" (which actually exists as such only in geology textbooks and nowhere in the actual earth record itself). Moreover, the various scientific methods (e.g. carbon-14 dating, potassium-argon dating, thermoluminescent dating) employed for fossil and pottery dating are suspect, being imprecise and contradictory in their findings. . . .But the tendency of Scripture . . . .seems to be toward a relative young earth and a relative short history of man to date.

H. Gunkel, liberal: (Cited in Hasel, Origins, 21(1) )

The 'days' of Genesis are of course days and nothing else.

G von Rad, liberal: (Genesis 1-11, p. 65)

The seven days are unquestionably to be understood as actual days and as unique, unrepeatable lapses of time in the world.

I could marshal more, but this seems sufficient.

 

[MC1171611]

Incredible! Good research; I could never have said it nearly as clearly. The Bible must be the Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice; if the Bible says days, then it means days, not thousands or millions of years.

 

[keyarch]

Elsewhere

Luther wrote: “When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days,”

Just for a minor comment on this quote from Luther, I thought I would say that Moses did not write that God “created” everything “in” six days. There is nothing in Hebrew that could be translated to include those two words.

Here’s what Exodus 20:11 actually says.

“For six days the Lord (‘aasaah) worked on (or fashioned) the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that’s in them and rested the seventh day….”

This example of what God Himself did demonstrates a literal work week with a literal day of rest. It does not say that God created the whole universe within a six day period.

Most of the time, I see the above passage used as a YEC argument for a young universe. I think this is a mistake. One can hold to the literal six days of events outlined in Genesis without including stars (the language of Genesis 1:16 having a similar problem).

 

[MC1171611]

Just for a minor comment on this quote from Luther, I thought I would say that Moses did not write that God “created” everything “in” six days. There is nothing in Hebrew that could be translated to include those two words.

Here’s what Exodus 20:11 actually says.

“For six days the Lord (‘aasaah) worked on (or fashioned) the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that’s in them and rested the seventh day….”

This example of what God Himself did demonstrates a literal work week with a literal day of rest. It does not say that God created the whole universe within a six day period.

Most of the time, I see the above passage used as a YEC argument for a young universe. I think this is a mistake. One can hold to the literal six days of events outlined in Genesis without including stars (the language of Genesis 1:16 having a similar problem).

Please ignore the Bible correction, folks.

 

[keyarch]

Please ignore the Bible correction, folks.

I don't understand your call for others to ignore my post. I welcome correction and/or reproof, and if you think I’m wrong, why would you not want to show me the truth?

I thought we’re on the same side. I believe in a literal six day creation week some 6,000 ya. and a literal global flood 1656 years after that; and that scripture is inerrant as the inspired Word of God; and meant to be taken literal when written in that manner.

I am not the only one who has this interpretation of Exodus 20:11. Here is part of a commentary by ‘Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’ (they still have “For [in] six days):

“Ex 20:8-11 Verse 11. For in six days the Lord made, [`aasaah (OT:6213), not baaraa' (OT:1254), created]. The operation referred to in this passage-namely, the making of the "heaven," or firmament, "the earth," "the sea, and all that in them is" - is that described, Gen 1:6-27. The words which were spoken by Yahweh Himself, and afterward given by Him as a permanent record on stone, do not assert that the work of creation was begun and entirely completed in six days. Only so much of the creative process is referred to as related to the law of the Sabbath, the six days of the Adamic creation. In other words, the object of the passage is not to touch upon anything that might, or might not, have taken place in the universe, or even on this globe, prior to the first day of the Adamic creation; its specific design is to determine that nothing was done after the sixth day.”

 

[MC1171611]

...and that scripture is inerrant as the inspired Word of God...

The main question is "What is Scripture?" And "Do we have God's Word?" If the Bible that we have is perfect, then it can interperet itself; it doesn't need to go running back to the Greek, Hebrew and Chaldee just to prove that it is right. If it is Truth, then it ought to be able to stand on it's own.

 

[ebia]

<deleted>

 

[keyarch]

The main question is "What is Scripture?" And "Do we have God's Word?" If the Bible that we have is perfect, then it can interperet itself; it doesn't need to go running back to the Greek, Hebrew and Chaldee just to prove that it is right. If it is Truth, then it ought to be able to stand on it's own.

Scripture is what was written in its original language. Since our translations (Bibles) cannot be word for word and have interpretive language interjected into them, they are not the final authority with regard to the Truth. Therefore, if there is something in a translation that doesn't seem to be right, it's up to us to go back to the original scripture and look at the various meanings of the words used and compare them in context to other places. It also helps to look at commentaries from others that have experience with the languages. Even the KJV has discrepancies that have been resolved this way. I won’t get into examples here because that may lead to topics that are off track of the original post, but if you PM me I can provide you with some.

 

[vossler]

Thanks Adam, I really enjoyed the quotes and will keep them for future reference.