Theistic Evolution/ The Day Age theory
Did God create the earth through the method of an evolutionary process?
Can the word for day in Genesis be interpreted to support millions of years preposed in the evolutionary theory?
The Day/Age Theory
The Day-Age Theory or as it is also known, the Geologic Day theory, has become the progressively popular belief of Theo-evolutionists. It holds that the six creative days of the first chapter of Genesis were long periods of time equivalent to the geologic eras proposed in the theory of evolution. This insinuates that the days of Genesis were millions of years in length, not normal 24-hour days. The theory warrants this belief by making the days of Genesis 1 not literal, but figurative. The goal of this theory is to reconcile what science says is true and the biblical account of creation. By ignoring the Biblical sequence of creation, it allows the geologist the sequence he wants to allow partial or complete evolution.
The argument is based on how the Hebrew word for day (yom) is used and defined in Genesis. Those who push the Day-Age Theory must make the argument that the word is not literal but figurative. One way that this is done is by referring to other scriptures in the Bible that might have a figurative meaning, such as Genesis 2:4. This is probably the strongest argument that the day-age theorists have. When examining the Hebrew word for day in its context, the theory does not hold up. It has little to no exegetical or contextual evidence and the little it has come from assumptions and special pleading. An honest and sound examination of the word yom within its context will never allow any rendering other than a literal 24-hour day.
The primary argument of the Day-Age Theorists is based on the fact that the Hebrew word can, in certain context, be interpreted to mean a period of time longer than 24 hours. There are examples in the Old Testament were the word yom is used to mean a period longer than 24 hours. Genesis 26:8, Genesis 4:3, Genesis 2:4, Psalms 95:8-9 and Jeremiah 46:10 are all instances were yom or its plural form yommim are used to signify a period of time longer than the 24 hour day of Genesis 1. These periods are short however, especially in comparison to millions of years.
The fact that there are a few instances where the word can be rendered differently in other context does not change the fact that in the context of Genesis 1 it must mean a 24-hour day. One reason for this is the fact that in Genesis 1:5 the word is both used and defined. It states, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” This should be evidence enough to the period of time that defines yom in this context. There are 100 cases in the Old Testament where the phrase “evening and morning” is used with the word yom. In ever case where it is used in a non-prophetic passage, it means a 24-hour day.
Even though there are a few instances where the word is given to mean a longer period of time, in most cases it means a 24-hour day. The word is used 1,284 times in the Old Testament. Out of these 1,284 times, only a few can be translated to be longer than 24-hours. Every time that the word appears in the Old Testament and is preceded by a numeral, as it does in Genesis 1, it carries the meaning of a normal day. For a theory that is based on linguistic evidence, there is no lexical evidence to support its claims. Even when looking at the plural form of day, yommim, there is no basis for a long period of time. The word yommim appears in the Old Testament 700 times and always refers to literal 24-hour days.
Those who advocate the Day-Age Theory have to go to great trouble to show that the word yom can be used figuratively. By using passages such as Genesis 2:4 they wish to prove that the word can be used figuratively. The fact that the word for “day” can be used figuratively is not a problem. The problem comes when one tries to place the meaning of one word in its context into a totally different context and want it to mean the same thing. It doesn’t matter how the word is used in other places in scripture, what matters is how the word is translated in the context of Genesis 1.
There are many problems that must be addressed if the meaning of yom in Genesis one is figurative. First of all there is a problem with the story of Adam. If each day was a period of thousands of years, how could Adam live from day six to day seven and then to day eight? Adam only lives to be 930 years old. Yet he lived through two of these days because God drove Adam and Eve out after the seventh day. Each one of these days would have been thousands of years long. It would be a stretch (according to the theory) to say Adam lived through even one of these periods.
Another problem comes from the history of Israel. The Israelites were commanded to work six days and rest on the Seventh day because this was the pattern God followed in creating the universe. (Exodus 20:8; 31:17) Going by the language and the same use of the word yom, this would mean that they had to rest for thousands of years without working. We know this to be false, so what does it mean? By manipulating the language to say whatever you want wherever you want you make it meaningless and confusing. If the “day” of Genesis 1 is not a 24-hour day, it bears no resemblance or parallel to the Sabbath day of rest that was given to the Israelites.
When considering the creation of plants, another problem arises. Each geological period lasts millions of years, half in daylight and half in darkness. How could plant life live through the periods of darkness that are implied to be at least a million years long? In addition there is a serious problem regarding plant reproduction. From the text, plants were not created till day three. Yet living creatures were not created until days five and six. How could plants that are pollinated solely by insects survive up to the time the insects were created? This is besides the fact that the plants couldn’t have survived without the son, which wasn’t created till day four.
If a figurative translation of the yom in Genesis 1 is taken it makes the whole creation story and its language meaningless. Genesis 1:14 says God created the lights to divide the day from the night, and that they were to be for “signs, for seasons, for days, and for years.” If the days are actually years, then what are the years? The passage becomes ridiculous when the word yom is taken figuratively. If the “figurative” meaning were put in place of day the end of the verse would read like this, “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for ages of millions of years and for years.”
Figurative interpretation of the creation makes no sense considering the fact that God could have expressed a creation that took ages, if that was the case. There was a word that Moses could have used, if he had wanted to, to signify ages or long periods of time. He could have used the word dor, which has that very meaning. But he used yom, because he wanted to convey 24-hour days. How else could God have conveyed this? Yom was the only word available and the only word needed to communicate that idea.
There is no way to make the Day-Age Theory coincide with language or teachings of the Biblical text. It is grammatically and exegetically impossible. The Hebrew word yom in the context of Genesis 1 can only mean a 24-hour day. Neither can the word be taken figuratively because of conflicts with the language and stories in the text. The only reason for the existence of the theory is to allow the time needed by evolutionary geology and biology.
Works Consulted
Fields Weston W. Unformed and Unfilled. Collinsville, Illinois: Bergener Enterprises, 1976
Holdcroft Thomas L. The Pentateuch. Abbotsford, Canada: CeeTec Publishing, 1996
Rimmer Harry. Modern Science and The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1954
Rimmer Harry. The Harmony of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1949
Thompson Bert. Did God Create the world in 6, 24-Hour Days?Reason and Revelation Journal Vol. 20, Montgomery, Al: Apologetics Press, 2000.
Thompson Bert. Creation Compromises. Montgomery, Al: Apologetics Press, 2000
