When is a Day Really a Day

In response to a recent request, this is an excerpt from my book, "What Happened to Hope."

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.”  (Genesis 2:1-3).

As Noah and his family left the ark, they remained in a covenant relationship with God. This included their observance of the Sabbath, established by God at creation.

ANCIENT LENGTH OF WEEK

West Africa: 4 Day Week

Mesopotamia: 7 Day Week

Hebrews: 7 Day Week

Rome: 8 Day Week

Celts: 9 Day Week

Egypt: 10 Day Week

Greece: 10 Day Week

China: 10 Day Week

Mesoamerica: 13 Day Week

After the confusion of the languages at Babel, ideas were confused as well and many of the people-groups lost concepts, technologies and ideas, while retaining others. Some of these groups lost ideas about timekeeping (and the associated   covenant-keeping). This basic concept is useful when tracing ancient people: Hebrews in the Old World, and in the New World. When we consider the length of a week in ancient cultures, we are also observing their proximity to His people and the condition of their relationship with God.

The word "week" comes from the Old English word wice, meaning "a series of seven days." The Hebrew word for "week" is שבוע (pronounced shavua). It is derived from the word sheva (שבע), meaning "seven," Except for Shabbat, the Hebrew weekdays are named after their order Rishon literally means “first”, Sheni means “second”, Shlishi means “third” and so on. However, the Hebrew word שבת (Shabbat) means “stopped working” or “rested”. God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. He commanded his people to rest on the seventh day. This is an important indicator in cultural anthropology.

 When Noah’s descendants began to migrate south and west towards what became Mesopotamia, the “fertile crescent,” they took the Sabbath with them. It is no surprise then to see modern anthropologists place the origin of the seven-day week in Mesopotamia, at the beginning of human re-civilization after the flood. The reality of a covenant-keeping seven-day week begins at an understanding of God’s intention when he said “day.” Just as the concept of a week reveals a deeper covenantal understanding, so it is with the foundational “day” of creation.

While the geological evidence appears compelling to anyone who would review it absent an atheistic bias, the desire of many Christians to reconcile themselves with theories of evolution, millions and billions of years, and other ideas on origins cause them to question one foundational biblical concept. Did God mean really mean day, when he said yôm? The use of the term yôm in Genesis to describe the creative periods is fundamental to understanding God’s role as creator, and the power of the atonement offered by His Son. The reinterpretation of this term, while perhaps well-intentioned, has significant repercussions. This foundational concept has significant impact on any discussion on biblical authority. A thorough understanding of the use of yôm as well as a review of the competing views on its interpretation and use, are important concepts for any Christian.

In understanding differing world views which originate from alternate interpretations of the term “yôm” in the biblical account of creation, it is important to review the position of those who propose or most vocally defend alternate views. These include Progressive Creation/Day Age and the Gap Theory. All rely on unique linguistic interpretations of the same scripture, Genesis 1, to support their theories.

The Gap Theory

The Gap Theory, a precursor in many ways to Progressive Creation, proposes that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there is a gap of some period of time.[1] Into this gap, those who support this theory place the existence of dinosaurs, and the deposition of layers of sediment that cover them. It also suggests that a pre-Adam race of men occupied the earth, and that their destruction was the result of Satan’s influence. This theory also suggests that the world was then destroyed by a flood sent by God to destroy this earlier “creation”, and when God moved into the creation of verse 2, he was “recreating” the earth, using an unlikely interpretation of the term “bara” used in Genesis 1:1 as justification. This allows the billions/millions of years of supposed geological evidence to be reconciled with the Biblical account. This theory proposes that all life prior to the flood (and the fossils they left behind) should be considered genetically unrelated to life today.[2] This theory gained some level of credibility and notoriety when it was included in the reference notes for the book of Genesis in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.

There is no geological evidence for the events described in the Gap theory, which would require two great flood events. In addition, the entire theory hangs on Hebrew word usage (exegesis), and the meaning of the language recorded by Moses. The ideas proposed by the Gap Theory proponents are not supported by word usage elsewhere in Genesis, or elsewhere in the Bible.

There is no gap supported by the use of the term bara, the word translated as “create,” in Genesis 1. The qal stem of the verb bara is used exclusively in the Old Testament to indicate an activity performed by God.[3] Bara is never applied to an action performed by man anywhere in the Bible.[4] The Bible teaches that the heavens and earth were in fact created; in other words, matter is not self-existing. In the grammatical form in which bara is used (qal stem, perfect tense), this word means that God created that which had not previously existed, and that His creative work is a completed action. In other words, creation is ex nihilo, "out of nothing". The Apostle John emphasizes this in the beginning of his Gospel account: "All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:3). Christ is "before all things" (Colossians 1:17, John 17:5). The Biblical record states that God spoke the universe into being and that God's creative activity has ceased (Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29; Psalm 33:6-9, 148:1-5); that He now upholds the created order by His word (Hebrews 1:3); and "by Him all things consist" - literally, "hang together" (Colossians 1:17).

Progressive Creation/Day-Age

Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer are two of the primary proponents of the successor to the Gap Theory, the Progressive Creation/Day-Age interpretation of creation.[5] Ross places nature on a par with the Bible in terms of authoritative sources for revelation, often referring to nature as the “sixty-seventh book” of the Bible.[6] This view attempts to reconcile the billions of years required by the geological ages of Charles Lyell. Lyell’s uniformitarian theories provided the framework for Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. As Darwin put it, he believed that his books “came out of Lyell’s brains.” [7]

While the concepts which form the Progressive Creation/Day-Age theory date back to the 1830’s, it was the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) and Bernard Ramm who in 1954 formalized the concepts into a form of theistic evolution that today is championed by current Progressive Creation proponents.

Reconciling the Bible with the theories of these scientists is accomplished by utilizing a particular definition for the Hebrew word translated as “day”, yôm, in Genesis, Chapter 1.[8] Ross, and others who support this view, apply a meaning to yôm that allows it to represent an abstract “long period of time.”[9] In addition, the view incorporates death into the initial creation. In this theory, death is not the result of the Fall but is a part of God’s initial creation.[10]

In combination, these assumptions allow the billions of years proposed by secular scientists to be reconciled with the Biblical account. Progressive Creationism supports scientist’s interpretation of the fossil record. This is an evolutionary interpretation.[11] In Gleason’s case at least there is some attempt to distance this approach from a belief in evolution in the Darwinian sense. Gleason states, “There is no inherent connection between evolution…and the length of time indicated by rock formations, extinct fossils, and radioactive materials.” He then continues however with a less supportive statement, “we can demonstrate that there is no conflict between the explanation of nature revealed in Scripture and the geological evidence of an ancient earth”[12].

Ross proposes that the week of creation has extended over billions of years as well. He claims that the culmination of this creation week, the seventh day, continues today and will not end until the new heaven and new earth begin.[13]

In another attempt to discard the biblical timeline required by a literal interpretation of days in Genesis, Hugh Ross teaches that the Biblical flood did not cover the earth. Rather, the flood was a local event to the Mesopotamian region and the majority of animals in the world were not affected by it.[14] He believes that the geology observed today, and biological diversity present in the world are therefore the result of billions of years of earth history, and not evidence of a global flood. Further evidence, he believes, that the earth was created over billions of years, and not in six literal days as recorded in Genesis.

The heart of these theories is in the interpretation of scripture and the credibility given to extra-Biblical authority. While scientific data can be a compelling testimony to any theory, its evaluation, and the assumptions this evaluation is based upon are critical. In the case of these alternate interpretations, the assumptions begin with science, rather than with the language and truthfulness of the Bible.

The Day is a Thousand-Years Theory

Many believers point to Psalm 90 (and 2 Peter 3:8) as a means to justify additional time to God’s creative act. They see Psalm 90 as a math equation: 1 day=1,000 years. If this were true, it would create real chaos with understanding anything in the scriptures relating to time. It also implies that God does not have the ability to communicate accurately. This same reasoning is used to justify millions of years, claiming there is not a good way to communicate such large numbers, so God simply used shorthand in Genesis 1. However, in Revelation, He had no problem communicating through John that two-hundred million soldiers would be involved. Revelation 9:16 says, “The number of mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand; I heard their number.” And in Genesis 24:60, “And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.” 1,000 times 1 million = 1 billion. So, if God wanted to express deep time in Genesis he could have, and would have done so clearly.

When God commanded Israel to keep the sabbath, he used the six days of creation as justification, without any ambiguity. To apply the “day is as a thousand-years” model would imply one Sabbath every six thousand years.

When Joseph Smith was studying the Book of Revelation, he had a number of questions. These questions, and the answers the Lord provided are recorded in Doctrine and Covenants Section 77. Joseph said of God’s revelations: “Whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, of figure of any kind, He always holds Himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it."[15]

In Verse 12 of Section 77, he asked the Lord about the trumpets in chapter 8 of Revelation, and was told:

“We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.”

Joseph also asked God, “What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?” God’s answer is recorded in verse 6, “We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.”

These verses tell us that the earth will have a seven-thousand-year existence, and that Christ will come at the beginning of the seventh thousand. This will make a total of seven thousand years of the earth's existence. We are approximately six thousand years into creation, it is important to acknowledge this truth, without ambiguity, or we will not be prepared for Christ’s return.

When Peter made his comment, “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” he was warning about the dangers of those who will deny Christ’s return saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." He was quoting Psalm 90 because it was understood by his listeners to be Moses' words of encouragement to be patient. His purpose was to encourage the people to be vigilant in awaiting the return of Christ, and to do so, we have to acknowledge His creation and trust His truth of it. He continues, “For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.“ He warns that those who deny Christ’s return are “scoffing, following their own sinful desires,” but that the “Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 

Psalm 90 offers a profound reflection on the brevity of human life in stark contrast to the eternality of God. It compels readers to "number their days" as a means of gaining wisdom and understanding the fleeting nature of their existence. This psalm does not recount the events of creation; instead, it addresses the human condition, urging us to recognize our mortality in light of God’s infinite power and judgment.

The central theme of Psalm 90 underscores the impermanence of human life against the backdrop of God's everlasting presence. It encourages us to reconsider our earthly pursuits and prioritize spiritual growth over temporal desires. By calling us to "number our days" (Psalm 90:12), the psalm invites a conscious awareness of our limited time on earth, fostering the wisdom needed to lead a truly meaningful life.

In contrast, Genesis 1 presents the majestic narrative of the six days of creation, where God brought forth the heavens, the earth, light, and all living things. This powerful account highlights God’s unparalleled creative authority and the establishment of the natural world.

Although both scriptures connect to God, they illuminate different dimensions of faith and truth. Psalm 90 confronts us with the reality of human mortality and the urgent need for spiritual insight, whereas Genesis 1 celebrates God’s creative power and the intricate formation of the universe. Together, they offer a holistic view of our relationship with the divine, balancing the truth of our impermanence with the awe of creation.

The Exegesis of “yôm”

In the absence of a desire to support an old-earth worldview, what motivation is there for the linguistic calisthenics required to reinterpret the term yôm to mean something other than what it says? When the word yôm is used in association with either numerical values, or other descriptors (such as evening and morning), it never means anything other than a 24-hour period. In no other instance in the Bible is yôm used to describe any other period when the cardinal descriptors are present.[16] As observed by Jonathan Sarfati, “The two words “evening” and “morning” are combined with yôm nineteen times each outside of Genesis 1. Every time, they clearly mean that particular literal part of a 24-hour day, regardless of the literary genre or context.”[17] To assume anything other in this instance, particularly to satisfy an old-earth theory is not supported.

The “singular yôm is ordinarily employed purely for temporal references, retaining the basic meaning day”[18], which indicates both the “temporality of the occasion and its localization at a certain time.”[19] As in our current use of the word ‘day’, yôm either indicates the space of time marked by the light of the sun, as contrasted with layla, night, or the space of time from one evening till the next one. When it is used to imply a quality, or occasion to the day, such as, ‘the day of evil’ (Amos 6:3), or the ‘day of punishment’ (Isaiah 10:3) it does not include the modifiers (temporal, numerical or an association with layla, night).

Another important exegetical factor is the association of the word yôm, with the Hebrew cardinal term, echad. Specifically, this cardinal term, most often translated as “first”, and used in Genesis 1:5 in that context, stands for the ordinal when dealing with a small number of “countable” items, such as the days of creation. Speaking in particular of the sixth day of creation, Andrew Steinmann said, “This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was the culminating day of creation.”[20] Francis Humphrey states this argument concisely, the fact that “the word yôm is accompanied by sequential numerical denotation and the language of ‘evening and morning’ gives a prima facie case that regular 24-hour days are in view.”[21] The exegetical case for yôm being utilized within the Genesis account as anything other than a 24-hour period is not supported by the text itself. The consistency of its utilization throughout the Bible, requires a single conclusion, Moses was describing a sequence of actual, 24-hour days when he described the creation week.

It is logical to consider the exegetical argument in light of other research on the subject. The fact that Ross chooses to place nature on par with scripture as a source for revelation is not a genuine argument. It can lead to what Paul warned of, “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”[22] (Romans 1:24) Because nature cannot of itself communicate ideas or meaning, it must be evaluated. Nature has no immutable meaning, all meaning must be inferred and evaluated through a worldview or set of assumptions that are man-made, and therefore flexible. It is important to ask, “what are the intentions or assumptions being furthered by the specific evaluation?” Ross does not simply give nature a Biblical authority, he gives authority to anti-God geologists and paleontologists who provide the geological interpretation. The data itself, the presence of rock layers, and the fossils they contain tell a different story when God is considered the Creator, than if they are the result of random events. Considering the fallen nature of man, and his diminished intellectual capacity which resulted from that fall, giving authority to man-interpreted natural observations on par with God-revealed scripture is flawed.[23] Rather than considering the creation as equal with the Creator, when we place His word above the creation in authority, and evaluate the evidence in terms of biblical truth, a science that is directed by eternal truth, rather than flawed, temporary belief reveals itself. This true science embraces views such as yôm indicating a discrete 24-hour period, the reality of the biblical flood and God’s direct creation of all living things.

The Impact of Alternate Views

Science that refuses to consider the role of God in creation, his omnipotent power, and its miraculous nature, are de facto, anti-God, regardless of who supports them. The attempt to reconcile with anti-God science permeates the views of Progressive Creation and Day-Age theorists. Andrew Kulikovsy writes that theistic evolution is “clearly a theological explanation designed to accommodate Darwinism.”[24]  Because evolution is a theory powered by death; Ross proposes that death was a part of God’s initial creation. The acceptance of death before the fall has profound implications. The apostle Paul wrote that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin.” (Romans 5:12) This is a foundational Christian belief, because it was through Jesus Christ that “we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him…” (Romans 5:9).  Evolution requires death. Survival of the fittest requires death of the weakest. In the absence of death, there can be no theory of evolution, theistic or otherwise. Therefore, an acceptance of the idea of theistic evolution requires an acceptance of pre-Fall death, and a rejection of Christ’s foundational work.

Because the Bible provides a particular chronology and sequence to the events of creation, those who support theistic evolution, in any flavor, must also address the inconsistencies between the two in terms of sequence. In evolutionary theory the first animals evolved in the seas, and then became land animals, and ultimately flying animals (both birds and bats). In Genesis, sea and flying creatures are created on the fifth day, with land animals created on the sixth. God also revealed that He created plants on the land before creating living creatures in the seas.[25] This is also a contradiction to the evolutionary timeline. Simply denying the exegetical meaning of “yôm” and reinterpreting the Hebrew words used to describe creation days to accommodate it, as a way of accepting billions of years, does not address the inherent incompatibility between the Biblical account, and these implicitly anti-“God as Creator” theories.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote “If the Bible does not kill Evolution, Evolution will kill the Bible.” He continued, "There is not and cannot be, any compromise between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution…It is not possible for a logical mind to hold both Bible teaching and evolutionary teaching at the same time…If you accept [the scriptures] you cannot accept organic evolution.[26]" Any attempt to integrate theories of men, that have by their very nature excluded God and any of His miracles, will always require compromise. That compromise comes with a cost. It is not simply a matter of which theory sounds better, or who can make the better argument. It is a matter of authority.

Accepting the Bible as the Word of God, requires a belief in what it says, even if that may be at odds with the intellectual majority for a time. Through the process of evaluating those who developed and continue to teach against a literal interpretation of the term “yôm” to mean an actual, 24-hour day, it has become clear that the accommodations made to reconcile with secular science have relegated God to a spiritual role, and not a physical one. Rather than God being front and center in His creation, He is now relegated to filling in the gaps.

Accepting that “yôm” does, in fact mean a 24-hour period, and that the Biblical account is therefore actual, historic fact, places God back at the center of His creation. It also allows us to recognize the beauty of His creation, and the redemption offered by His Son. A redemption that necessarily included conquering the death introduced by the actions of man, the fall. When we understand the role God played as Creator, and the reliability of His account, we are able to appreciate the power of His Son to overcome the corrupting influence sin brought into that creation. We are able to embrace the salvation He offers.

References

[1] Hugh Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy, Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress, 1994, 36.

[2] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesi,. Sheffield Publishing, 1975, 44.

[3] John Parsons, Zola’s Introduction to Hebrew, Zola Levitt Ministries, 2002, 10.2.

[4] Davis, 1975, 44.

[5] Gleason L Archer, “A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,” Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible: [papers from ICBI Summit II], ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Prues. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986, 331.

[6] Ross, 1994, 57.

[7] “Charles Lyell,” Darwin Correspondence Project. University of Cambridge..

[8] Archer, 1986, 327-328.

[9] Hugh Ross,. A Matter of Days, Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress, 2004, 81–83.

[10] ibid., 83.

[11] Ross, 1994, 83.

[12] Archer, 1986, 332-333.

[13] Ross, 1994, 59.

[14] ibid., 73

[15] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 291

[16] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2017, 73-79.

[17] ibid., 81.

[18] James Barr, Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at London, Brill Academic Publishers, 1974, 129.

[19] ibid., 129

[20] A. Steinmann, אֶחָד [echad] as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45(4), 2002, 577–584.

[21] Francis Humphrey, “The Meaning of yôm in Genesis - creation.Com.

[22] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced employ the English Standard Version

[23] Terry Mortenson, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2008, 129.

[24] Andrew Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation, Mentor, 2009, 118.

[25] Jonathan Sarfati, “Evolution/long ages contradicts Genesis order of Creation,” Creation Magazine 37, no. 3 (July, 2015), 52-54.

[26] Joseph Fielding Smith (1954). Man, His Origin and Destiny.