Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
103 Science, the Bible,
and Creation



Old Earth Creationism (Part 3):
Answering Old Earth Objections


Old Earth Creationism (Part 1): 8 Major Hermeneutic Proofs
Old Earth Creationism (Part 2): 5 Additional Evidences
Old Earth Creationism (Part 3): Answering Old Earth Objections


Answering Old Earth Objections

Having established the insurmountable case for why Genesis describes a young earth created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago, we now turn our attention to the common objections offered by old earth creationists. In this section, there are 6 prominent old earth objections that we will address.

The first objection is based around the relationship of a “day” to the earth’s rotation on its axis in the light of the sun. Conceptually, people understand a day to be comprised of 24 hours divided into a period of time spent facing the sun and a period of time spent facing away from the sun as the earth rotates on its axis. Consequently, by extension, the sun plays a role in our perception of a day. Keying in on this perception, old earth creationists object that the days of Genesis 1 could not be normal days as young earth creationists suggested, because in the young earth creation model the sun is not created until Day 4. Therefore, according to the old earth argument, since the first 3 days have no sun, they could not be defined as a 24 hour period half in sunlight and half out of sunlight.

While it is true that in the young earth model, the sun does not exist until Day 4, this does not pose a problem for the view that the days are 24 hour periods. First, even without the sun, there is simply no reason why God could not already have the earth spinning on an axis at a rate which takes 24 hours to complete one rotation. And second, even if the earth was not rotating, it is still possible to divide time into durations, such as the length of what would become a normal, 24-hour day. Just because the sun doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that God could not keep track of time or divide the creation week into intervals of 24-hours, which He would subsequently set as the base unit of calendar time. Ultimately, the fact that the sun does not exist until Day 4 simply does not prevent the days of Genesis 1 from being periods of 24-hours or even from being rotation periods of 24-hours.

Furthermore, the full Biblical model is one in which the Holy Spirit is hovering over the waters. The Holy Spirit, also depicted as the glory of God, is at times described as taking on a brightness that lights the earth and coming from the east, similar to the rising of the sun.

Ezekiel 43:1 Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looketh toward the east: 2 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. 3 And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.

Notice that Ezekiel compares this vision in chapter 43 to his earlier vision by the Chebar River. The Chebar River vision is described in Ezekiel 1-3, in which Ezekiel describes that this is a “vision of God.”

Ezekiel 1:1 Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

Consequently, Ezekiel is experiencing a vision in which he sees God lighting the earth, just as we would conceive of the sun doing today.

Psalms 104 speaks of the creation week and asserts that God did indeed take on “light as a cloak” during that time.

Psalms 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. 2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: 3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: 4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

We know that this statement from Psalms concerns God covering himself with light during the first 3 days of the Genesis 1 creation week, because of the details cited in the passage. The stretching out of the heavens and the waters being given boundaries so that the dry land can emerge are both mentioned here and these are both events that occur on Days 2 and 3 of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Consequently, we know by comparing Psalms 104 to Genesis 1 that God did indeed cover Himself with light during the initial 3 days of the creation week. The understanding is that this refers to the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, who was hovering over the earth. (Notice also that the Spirit is not necessarily standing still, but moving over the waters.)

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In addition, Revelation is clear that in eternity to come, God will himself once again provide the light, making the sun unnecessary.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

In light of these facts, while the sun is not present until Day 4 in the young earth model, the young earth model asserts that the Holy Spirit was hovering over the earth, providing the light that the sun later would, presumably with the earth rotating beneath the Holy Spirit so that the whole surface of the planet would be exposed to his presence. This rotation of the earth under the Holy Spirit took 24-hours and later, on Day 4, the Holy Spirit was replaced by the sun as the source of light, at which point, the sun (and the moon) fell right into place with the existing scheme of time intervals and rotation that had already been established by the Holy Spirit. As a result, the days before the creation of the sun were the exact same as the days after the creation of the sun, each being 24-hours of rotation in the presence of a light source. So, once again, the absence of the sun on Days 1-3 in the young earth model provides absolutely no obstacle to the view that all 7 days of Genesis 1 were literal, 24 hour periods.

The second objection asserted by old earth creationists involves the description in Genesis 2 that Adam named all the land animals and birds before Eve was created. Genesis 1:26-31 specifies that God made both the first male (Adam) and the female (Eve) on the same day, Day 6 of the creation week.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them…31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2 returns to the events of Day 6 and expounds upon them in greater detail than we find in chapter 1. In particular, here in chapter 2 we find that Adam was formed first, then he was placed in the garden of Eden, then God reproduced each land animal and bird before Adam from the soil of the garden, then Adam named them each, and then God made Eve.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it…19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Consequently, we know from Genesis 1:26-31 that Adam and Eve were formed on the same day, Day 6 and we also know from Genesis 2:7-25 that Adam named all of the animals and birds on that same day. The objection offered by the old earth creationists is that Adam could not have named all the land animals and the birds in one 24-hour period of time. Therefore, they argue that the sixth day, and by extension the other days of Genesis 1, must have been longer than 24-hours. However, there are several reasons why this objection is not a problem for young earth creationism.

First, the actual number of organisms that Adam would have to name is limited by the fact that he is only naming land animals and birds. He is not naming fish or plants or any other type of organisms recognized by modern taxonomy. This is going to drastically reduce the number of creatures that Adam has to name.

Second, it is important to note that not all of the categories of the land animals in Genesis 1 that are mentioned in Genesis 2. Specifically, only the cattle are mentioned in Genesis 2 while the “creeping things” are left out. In Genesis 1 below we can clearly see the creation of the cattle and the creeping things on Day 6 and that both groups are listed separately using separate Hebrew words.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle 0929, and creeping thing 07431, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle 0929 after their kind, and every thing that creepeth 07431 upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good…31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Yet Genesis 2:19 specifies that only “the beast of the field” and the fowls of the air are created in the garden and brought before Adam. Verse 20 clarifies that the “beasts of the field” refers to the “cattle.”

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field 07704, and every fowl 05775 of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle 0929, and to the fowl 05775 of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The Hebrew word for “cattle” is “behemah” (Strong’s No. 0929).

0929 behemah
from an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); TWOT-208a; n f
AV-beast 136, cattle 53; 189
1) beast, cattle, animal
1a) beasts (coll of all animals)
1b) cattle, livestock (of domestic animals)
1c) wild beasts

While the Hebrew word translated as “cattle,” certainly refers to more than simple livestock and probably includes a wide variety of wild beasts, such as reptiles and even primates, it does not include the larger category of “every creeping thing.” Consequently, the insects are not necessarily included here, only the higher animals. Furthermore, the exclusion of the insects is further corroborated by the account of Noah.

As can be seen in the quote below, Noah certainly did have to bring into the ark, not only the “cattle” but also “every creeping thing of the earth,” a category that Genesis 2 does not include among those animals that Adam had to name.

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

However, in the account of Noah, the text of scripture also uses language that distinguishes those animals in whom was the breath of life from the larger group of land animals in general. The first mention of the breath of life is when God formed Adam and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils in Genesis 2:7.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In Genesis 6, when God explains to Noah his intention to destroy the earth with a flood, God specifically refers to all flesh “wherein is the breath of life.”

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In Genesis 7, we see that God instructs Noah to take into the ark only animals “wherein is the breath of life.”

Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

And finally, in Genesis 7:22, we see that the category of animals “in whose nostrils was the breath of life” is distinguished from the larger category of all the organisms that live on dry land.

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Moreover, in Genesis 7:22 we once again see that the term “breath of life” refers only to those animals with “nostrils.” Consequently, the case of Noah seems to corroborate God’s primary focus on higher animals who breathe through nostrils, excluding insects, who in fact breathe through their skin. The fact that insects breathe through their skin rather than nostrils is affirmed in the quotes below.

Insect, Internal features, Respiratory system – The respiratory system consists of air-filled tubes or tracheae, which open at the surface of the thorax and abdomen through paired spiracles. The muscular valves of the spiracles, closed most of the time, open only to allow the uptake of oxygen and the escape of carbon dioxide. The tracheal tubes are continuous with the cuticle of the body surface.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Insect, V RESPIRATIONCertain species of insects breathe through the body wall, by diffusion, but in general the respiratory system of members of this class consists of a network of tubes, or tracheae, that carry air throughout the body to smaller tubelets or tracheoles with which all the organs of the body are supplied.” – "Insect," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Insect, Respiratory system – An insect breathes by means of tiny holes, called spiracles, along the sides of its body. Each hole leads into a large tube called a trachea. The large tubes divide into small tubes, which, in turn, divide into still smaller tubes that branch out to all the cells of the body. This system of tubes carries oxygen to the cells and takes away carbon dioxide.” – Worldbook, Contributor: E. W. Cupp, Ph.D., Professor of Entomology, Auburn University.

On this point, the creationist website Answers in Genesis (AnswersInGenesis.org) affirms that the Hebrew word behemah denotes land vertebrates.

In the original Hebrew, the word variously translated as 'beast' or 'cattle' in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general.” – How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?, by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Chapter 13

Given that the language of Genesis 2 specifies “behemah” while leaving out “every creeping thing” and the case of Noah in which the focal concern is the higher animals with nostrils, it seems that very likely that Adam did not have to name the insects, only the higher land animals and flying animals, such as birds and perhaps bats. Consequently, the group of animals that Adam most likely had to name is probably roughly similar to our modern category of vertebrates. As indicated by the quote below, there are only about 40,000 species of vertebrates.

Animal, II TYPES OF ANIMALS, A Vertebrates and Invertebrates – Vertebrates total about 40,000 species.” – "Animal," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The next quote states that the vertebrate grouping includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, which is probably the extent of the groups that Adam would have had to name. However, as we can see from the quote, the vertebrate grouping also includes water animals such as fish, rays, and lampreys, all of which Adam did not have to name.

Vertebrate – Vertebrate, any chordate animal possessing a segmented spinal column in the adult stage. In many widely accepted systems of classification, these animals are grouped into the subphylum Vertebrata, a subdivision of the phylum Chordata. The subphylum includes mammals (including humans), birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, rays, and lampreys.” – "Vertebrate," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

More importantly, as the quote below specifies, there are 25,000 species of fish and fish comprise over half of the known species of vertebrates.

Fish, II NTRODUCTION – Fish, diverse group of animals that live and breathe in water. All fishes are vertebrates (animals with backbones) with gills for breathing…With approximately 25,000 recognized species, fishes make up the most diverse vertebrate group, comprising about half of all known vertebrate species.” – "Fish," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

If there are 25,000 species of fish and that number represents half the number of vertebrate species, then there should be about 25,000 vertebrate species among those creatures that Adam had to name. And this number is confirmed when we add up the number of species in each major category of vertebrates.

There are about 10,000 species of birds.

Birds, V TYPES OF BIRDSThere are nearly 10,000 known species of modern or recently extinct birds.” – "Bird," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

There are about 5,250 species of reptiles.

Reptile, I INTRODUCTION – Reptile, common name applied to members of the vertebrate class Reptilia (see Animal), which include snakes, lizards, turtles, crocodilians, the tuatara, and numerous extinct fossil species. Among the existing forms are about 2500 species of snakes, 2500 species of lizards, nearly 250 species of turtles, 22 species of crocodilians, and two species of tuataras.” – "Reptile," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

There are about 4,400 amphibians.

Amphibian, I INTRODUCTIONAmphibian, common name for any animal of the vertebrate class lying between fishes and reptiles on the evolutionary scale. Emerging from the oceans almost 400 million years ago, amphibians were the first vertebrates (animals with a backbone) to venture onto land. The class, with about 4400 existing species, includes three living orders: the tailed amphibians, consisting of the salamanders (including newts) and sirens; the tailless amphibians, comprised of frogs and toads; and the caecilians, which are wormlike amphibians that are limbless and have vestigial eyes.” – "Amphibian," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

And finally, there are about 4,500 species of mammals.

Mammals, II TYPES OF MAMMALS – In biological classification, mammals form one of the six major classes of vertebrate animals. Mammals themselves are divided into three different groups, or subclasses, based on distinctive underlying features. The monotremes make up by far the smallest subclass of mammals, with just three species, found in Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea. One of these is the duck-billed platypus, and the remaining two are the echidnas, or spiny anteaters. The second subclass of mammals contains the marsupials…There are about 250 species of marsupials, and they are found in a variety of habitats…The third subclass of mammals, called placentals, includes about 4300 species, making it by far the largest of all three mammal groups.” – "Mammal," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

But, we have to subtract about 100 species of water-dwelling mammals such as whales and dolphins, since Adam only had to name the land animals.

Whale, II TYPES OF WHALESThere are at least 75 species of whale, each with its own unique characteristics.” – "Whale," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Dolphin, I INTRODUCTION – Dolphin, aquatic mammal closely related to whales and porpoises. Sleek and powerful swimmers found in all seas, dolphins are distinguished from porpoises by well-defined, beaklike snouts and conical teeth. The porpoise has a blunt snout, chisel-shaped teeth, and a stouter body. There are at least 32 species of dolphins.” – "Dolphin," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

When all of these vertebrate species are added up, the total is about 24,000 species, which Adam would have had to name. And this brings us to the next point.

Third, in accordance with the details of Genesis 1:20-21, 24-25, which describe God creating “kinds,” it is important to note that Adam most likely would have been naming “kinds,” which are a much more inclusive category than the “species” or varieties within each kind that we observe today. And because “kinds” are broader categories, with each kind having many species or varieties in it, there are far fewer kinds to name than species. Thus, Adam was not naming 24,000 individual species of land animals or birds. Adam was only having to name the kinds, which themselves are comprised of many different species. If we assume a conservative estimate that there are no more than 3 species to a kind, this would leave Adam with only about 8,000 animal kinds to name in about 10 to 12 hours of daylight.

In fact, this estimate of 8,000 is exactly what young earth creationists estimate as the number of kinds. The creationist website Answers in Genesis (AnswersInGenesis.org), has several articles describing estimates that there were originally only about 8,000 kinds of animals on Noah’s ark. In the article titled, “How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?” by Ken Ham, the author cites estimates for the number of kinds calculated by John Woodmorappe.

“Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals…On the other hand, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.1 A more comprehensive and updated technical study of this and many other related questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study.2  This chapter is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations…Woodmorappe tallied up about 8,000 genera, including extinct genera.” – How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?, by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, First published in The Revised and Expanded, Answers Book, Chapter 13

What is important to note is that Woodmorappe’s calculations are based around assuming that a kind is roughly equivalent to a “genera” not a “family” in modern taxonomy. This is important because a “genera” is closer to a species than a “family” is.

Genusplural genera biological classification ranking between family and species, consisting of structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation (monotypic genus).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, Woodmorappe’s estimates are conservative, providing even larger numbers than would result from assuming a rough equivalency between kinds and families. 

Similarly, when rebutting the arguments of old earth creationist Hugh Ross, Answers in Genesis makes the following comment estimating the original number of land-animal, vertebrate kinds (including birds) to be around 8,000. In addition, the estimates in this quote largely mirror the lines of reasoning we have independently traced above subtracting the number of marine vertebrates from the overall total.

Ross has conflated (old) creationist estimates of the number of land vertebrate species (a few thousand) with numbers of total species (millions)…In fact, only about 2% of the two million known extant species are vertebrates.10 This number is further reduced when the 25,000 marine vertebrates (mainly fish)11 and most of the four thousand amphibians12 are discounted, since God told Noah to take on board only land animals-marine creatures don't need preservation from a flood! So it is hardly startling to believe that 8,000 kinds of land vertebrates represented on board the Ark could give rise to the 11,000 living species, even if some of the Ark kinds have become extinct.” – Trilobites on the Ark? Hugh Ross’s latest bungles on the created kinds, by Jonathan Sarfati, 30 July 2004

Since the Hebrew day began with evening and ended with daylight and we have to allow enough time before the end of the day for Eve to be created, we might assume that Adam had 10 hours to complete this task of naming the animals. With 10 hours, on average Adam would have to name between 10-15 animals per minute in order to name all 8,000 kinds in the allotted timeframe.

Fourth, it is also important to keep in mind that Adam did not have to go on safari to first find and then catalog every kind of animal and bird in its own habitat out in the wild across the face of the whole planet. Instead, according to the Genesis text, God was creating each kind of land animal and bird right in front of Adam and bringing them forward for Adam to view individually.

Assuming that God was organized and brought the animals to Adam in a timely and orderly fashion, while tedious, this task is quite possible. If you time yourself, you will find that you can name 10 animals in less than 25 seconds and 15 animals in 40 seconds. In 60 seconds, you can name about 20 animals. At these rates, 12,000 kinds could be named in 10 hours and naming 8,000 kinds would only take about 6.5 to 7 hours, less than an average work day with a full hour’s lunch break. And that’s just an average person working from memory without any pictures or visual representations in front of you. Adam was made by God’s own hand and as the genetic source of the human race he would have likely possessed intelligence on par with at least some of the smarter figures of history. Not to mention that Adam was working from a parade of the actual animals orchestrated by God himself.

Furthermore, Adam didn’t even have to get them correct. He didn’t have to remember and use existing names. Since there were no existing names, anything that Adam said would have been acceptable. Moreover, how many proper names (like Dave, Steve, Elizabeth) could you say or even make up in 60 seconds? At least 20 to 30, and that’s effectively all that Adam was doing. Ultimately, even if Adam was not very smart, all he would have had to do was blurt out at least 10-15 different words per minute.

In conclusion to this objection, the simple fact is that estimating exactly what Adam would or would not have been mentally capable of accomplishing with assisting orchestration from God himself serves as a very speculative basis for denying that the days of Genesis were literal, 24-hour days. In contrast to this very speculative objection, the overwhelming hermeneutic evidence from the text itself stands unharmed and unwavering.

The third objection offered by old earth creationists is that some early, orthodox Christian writers of the second century asserted that the six days of Genesis were not actual days but long periods of time. More specifically, old earth creationists argue that Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) and Irenaeus (circa 120-200 AD) as well as others interpreted the days of Genesis 1 as periods of 1,000 years each.

In the book The Genesis Debate, old earth creationist Hugh Ross and his co-writer Gleason L. Archer express this argument explicitly.

“Ample documentation supports our claim that the early Church fathers did indeed discuss the when of creation (in addition to the Who, the how, and the order).9 Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus of Pettau, and Methodius of Olympus all explicitly endorse six consecutive thousand-year periods for the Genesis creation days. According to Ambrose, so did Hippolytus.” – Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, The Genesis Debate, Crux Press, Inc., copyright 2001, p. 69

However, this argument fails on 2 grounds. The first flaw in this argument stems from the fact that, even if we assume Ross’s assessment of early Christians like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr is correct, this argument still doesn’t provide enough time for the naturalist scientific timetable. Since Ross is arguing that the interpretation of the Genesis “days” as long ages of time is a sound interpretation shared by early, orthodox Christians, it is essential for Ross to at least present the interpretive evidence provided by these early Christians. In other words, since the validity of his interpretation is in question, Ross should present the textual evidence and reasoning provided by these early authors in support of Ross’ interpretation.

From the quote above, we notice that Ross and Archer specify that these early Christians believed in “six consecutive thousand-year periods.” Even according to Ross and Archer, these authors did not just believe in indefinite periods of time or long ages in general, but in periods that were exactly 1,000 years. And Ross and Archer are right to specify 1,000 years exactly, because the interpretive reasoning specified by these early authors themselves would inherently limit the extension of each day to 1,000 years only, no more.

In the quote below, for example, Irenaeus appeals to the declaration in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 that in God’s sight, a thousand years passes by as a day. Here Irenaeus explains the origin of the reasoning that God wants us to equate days with thousand-year periods. According to Irenaeus, since Adam was told he would die on the very day that he ate of the tree of knowledge and Adam died before surpassing 1,000 years of age, God was making an equation between a day and a thousand years.

“2. And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,"(8) he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, BOOK V, CHAP. XXIII

For comparison, below are Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3, from which Irenaeus is drawing this teaching about the day and the thousand years.

Psalm 90:4 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations…For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Consequently, since Irenaeus is citing the equation between a day and a thousand years, Ross and Archer know that arguments from Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and others are severely limited and cannot provide the indefinite long ages of time needed by the naturalist scientific timetable. Since the interpretations of these early writers are based in texts equating days to single thousand-year periods, Ross and Archer have simply not provided any interpretive evidence in support of extending those days any longer than exactly 1,000 years. This would extend time only an additional 7,000 years prior to the young earth creationist 6,000-year biblical history. And while it is longer than the young-earth creationist view of history, 13,000 years is still not enough time for the naturalist scientific timetable. In fact, 13,000 years is still going to be considered “young earth” in contrast to the billions of years suggested by atheistic naturalists, theistic evolutionists, and even non-evolutionist old earth creationists. Therefore, old earth creationists are still utterly without any interpretive evidence capable of reinterpreting Genesis 1 in a way that is compatible with the naturalist scientific timetable.

The second and more important flaw in this old earth creationist argument stems from the fact that Ross and Archer are grossly incorrect in their assessment of these early Christian writers. Rather than believing the days of Genesis were thousand-year periods, these early Christians explicitly stated that the seven days of Genesis were literal, normal days. Their statements about the thousand-year periods were, in fact, statements that there would be 1,000 years of history for each of those normal days of the creation week. In other words, according to these early Christians, the seven, 24-hour days of creation gave a prophetic hint that there would also only be 7,000 years total of human history, 1 thousand years for each normal day of the creation week. This explanation is explicitly described by Irenaeus in the quote below in the middle of which Irenaeus specifically refers to the Genesis week as a “prophecy” about the length of time of world history.


For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works."(6) This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For  the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;(7) and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, BOOK V, CHAP. XXVIII

As we can see clearly in the first line of the quote, Irenaeus distinguishes the days of the creation week from the thousands of years of world history. He does not consider the days themselves to be thousand-year periods but merely that world history would total to a number of thousand-year periods that corresponds to the number of days in the creation week. And Irenaeus states this conclusion explicitly as the last line of the quote.

Consequently, old earth creationists are still without any support for their interpretation of the days of Genesis to accommodate long ages of time, particularly millions or billions of years. The early, orthodox Christian writers believed in seven, literal, 24-hour days of creation and they also believed that the total of world history would be 7,000 years, one millennia for each day of the creation week. The fact that the early Christians believed that world history would span a total of only 7,000 years itself directly denies the old earth creationist timescale of millions or billions of years.

The fourth and fifth objections offered by old earth creationists surround a statement in Joshua 10:12-13.

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Here in Joshua 10, we find that Joshua asked God to make the “sun stand still” in the sky in order to provide more time, more daylight hours, for the Israelites to defeat their enemies in battle. This passage became the focus of a famous and perhaps tense historical disagreement between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church. Effectively, Galileo began making discoveries that the earth was not the center of the universe but instead, the earth revolved around the sun. Some details about this historic disagreement are provided in the quotes below.

Astronomy, History – In 1609, Galileo heard that an optical device had been built that made distant objects appear closer. He soon built his own telescope. The discoveries Galileo made with this instrument backed the Copernican theory over the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In 1616, however, the Roman Catholic Church warned Galileo not to teach that Earth revolves about the sun. A book of Galileo's published in 1632 was interpreted as a violation of the ban, and Galileo was put under house arrest. Only in 1992 did the Catholic Church confirm that Galileo should not have been tried or convicted.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

Galileo, Galileo's CopernicanismGalileo's increasingly overt Copernicanism began to cause trouble for him. In 1613 he wrote a letter to his student Benedetto Castelli (1528–1643) in Pisa about the problem of squaring the Copernican theory with certain biblical passages. Inaccurate copies of this letter were sent by Galileo's enemies to the Inquisition in Rome, and he had to retrieve the letter and send an accurate copy. Several Dominican fathers in Florence lodged complaints against Galileo in Rome, and Galileo went to Rome to defend the Copernican cause and his good name…During his first appearance before the Inquisition, he was confronted with the 1616 edict recording that he was forbidden to discuss the Copernican theory. In his defense Galileo produced a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine, by then dead, stating that he was admonished only not to hold or defend the theory. The case was at somewhat of an impasse, and, in what can only be called a plea bargain, Galileo confessed to having overstated his case. He was pronounced to be vehemently suspect of heresy and was condemned to life imprisonment and was made to abjure formally. There is no evidence that at this time he whispered, “Eppur si muove” (“And yet it moves”). It should be noted that Galileo was never in a dungeon or tortured; during the Inquisition process he stayed mostly at the house of the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican and for a short time in a comfortable apartment in the Inquisition building. (For a note on actions taken by Galileo's defenders and by the church in the centuries since the trial, see BTW: Galileo's condemnation.) After the process he spent six months at the palace of Ascanio Piccolomini (c. 1590–1671), the archbishop of Siena and a friend and patron, and then moved into a villa near Arcetri, in the hills above Florence. He spent the rest of his life there.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Specifically, we note 2 items from the last quote. First, Galileo was never tortured or placed in a dungeon and, although sentenced to life imprisonment, Galileo lived out the rest of his life in the Tuscan residence of the ambassador to the Vatican, in the palace of his friend and patron the archbishop of Siena, and in a villa in the hills above Florence. So, this episode should not be colored with the specter of religion torturing and imprisoning a scientist. Second, this last quote also states that Galileo and the Copernican theory ran into problems “with certain biblical passages.” This refers to Joshua 10:12-13 where the statement is found that the sun stood still in the sky. And, as noted above, old earth creationists offer 2 objections based upon this historic series of events in the life of Galileo.

The fourth objection offered by old earth creationists is that the historic episode involving Galileo demonstrates that straightforward interpretations of scripture will be inaccurate or incomplete unless scripture is interpreted in light of scientific discoveries. In other words, we must interpret scripture in accordance with modern scientific knowledge. However, this argument is invalid for 2 reasons.

Number one, a straightforward interpretation of Joshua 10 according to normal hermeneutic rules would not lead to an inaccurate understanding of the structure of the universe or the earth’s relationship to the sun. As outlined in our article titled, “Hermeneutic Systems and the Grammatical Historical Method,” the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which is the predominant method used by scholars and theologians specifically stipulates that “Figures of speech, such as metaphors, similes, etc. are taken as such.” Consequently, in standard hermeneutics (text interpretation) to interpret figures of speech literally constitutes misinterpreting of the text. Joshua 10:12-13 just so happens to be a common figure of speech, a common casual way of describing everyday celestial events.

In order to arrive at a conflict between Joshua 10 and the observable structure of the universe, we have to approach Joshua 10 with 2 preconceived assumptions, both of which are inaccurate. First, we have to assume that Joshua had a “primitive” understanding of astronomy in which the sun revolved around the earth. In particular, although Joshua was using everyday expressions so common that we still use similar expressions today, we have to assume that Joshua used those common phrases with a different meaning, a more “primitive” meaning, than we do today. And second, we have to assume that Joshua intended his statements in verses 12-13 as a description of the structure of the universe. However, if we approach the text without assuming Joshua was intending to make a declaration about the structure of the universe and without assuming that Joshua had a “primitive” view of the universe, then the text has no conflict with observable science. This brings up the following question. Don’t Joshua’s words themselves demonstrate a “primitive” understanding of astronomy?

Concerning this question, it is presumptuous to assume that Joshua’s statements about the “sun standing still” in the sky reflect Joshua’s understanding of astronomy. To illustrate, consider the following quote from Microsoft Encarta, which states that Copernicus’ theory “neatly explained why Mars appears to move backward across the sky.”

Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, B Sun-Centered Universe – Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered universe. A sun-centered universe neatly explained why Mars appears to move backward across the sky: Because Earth is closer to the sun, Earth moves faster than Mars.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Likewise, the quote below from Worldbook asserts that Copernicus’ theory “correctly explained the east-to-west movement of the sun and stars across the sky.”

Astronomy, Observing the sky, Sun-centered theories – By the early 1500's, the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had developed a theory in which the sun was at the center of the universe. This theory correctly explained retrograde motion as the changing view of the planets as seen from a moving Earth. The theory also correctly explained the east-to-west movement of the sun and stars across the sky. This movement is due to the west-to-east rotation of Earth about its own axis, rather than an actual motion of the sun and stars.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

When we read such statements from modern reference books, we don’t assume that the authors believe that the sun, stars, or Mars actually move across the sky in orbit around the earth or that it is their intention to communicate that idea. Likewise, when modern people refer to sunrise or sundown, we don’t assume that they believe the sun is moving around the earth. Instead, we assume they are either speaking poetically or casually without intending their words as technical descriptions of the structure of the universe. Yet, when we read a passage in the Bible such as Joshua 10:12-13, which similarly states “the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,” why do we interpret that statement differently from how we would interpret it in every other context that we’d hear such phrasing? Why the double standard?

The answer is simple. We are bringing to the text the assumptions that Joshua had a primitive understanding and that he was intending to describe the actual, structure of the universe. We don’t bring either of these 2 assumptions into consideration when we hear statements similar to Joshua’s in everyday speech and writing. Consequently, if we were to interpret Joshua’s statements simply in light of the normal rules for interpreting communication, without the interference of these 2 abnormal assumptions, we would understand Joshua’s words were not necessarily intended to have any more implications for the structure of the universe than everyday expressions about sunrise or sundown or even nightfall.

Most importantly, notice that we didn’t have to interpret scripture in light of modern science to avoid this problem. Instead, we simply had to abide by the normal rules of the grammatical-historical method and interpret “Figures of speech, such as metaphors, similes” and other such common expressions as just that, everyday expressions and figures of speech. When we abide by the normal rules of interpretation, the text of scripture will never present a conflict with actual observation. Furthermore, the normal rules for interpretation will prevent any such conflict without having to use modern science to interpret scripture. Consequently, old earth creationists are wrong when they suggest that interpreting scripture correctly requires interpreting scripture in light of modern science. Interpreting scripture correctly simply requires abiding within the normal hermeneutic rules and eliminating prejudicial biases when we approach the text. This leads to the second reason why this fourth objection from old earth creationists is invalid.

Number two, while old earth creationists cite the episode involving Galileo and the Church as evidence that the church will misinterpret scripture if modern scientific understanding is not first taken into account, the episode with Galileo actually proves the opposite. What old earth creationists often leave out is that, while Joshua 10 simply uses everyday expressions, which on their own are not necessarily intended to make claims about the structure of the universe, the Roman Catholic Church approached the text of Joshua 10 with a preconceived bias specifically intending to interpret Joshua 10 in terms of the popular secular science of that time. This is simply a matter of historic fact. The Roman Catholic Church had adopted and embraced the astronomical model of Aristotle and Ptolemy, 2 secular (or pagan) philosophers who taught that the earth was the center of the universe.

According to the quotes below, particularly the first quote, the earth-centered ideas of Ptolemy and Aristotle remained the popular views into the days of Copernicus and Galileo in the 1500’s and 1600’s AD.

Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient CosmologiesUntil the 16th century, most people (including early astronomers) considered the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Astronomy, History – Aristotle's system of physics and astronomy, developed in the 300's B.C., survived for almost 2,000 years. In Aristotle's system of astronomy, Earth was the center of the universe. During the A.D. 100's, Ptolemy modified Aristotle's system to account for the retrograde motion of the planets. Ptolemy also maintained that Earth was the center of the universe, however. Developing the modern view By the early 1500's, Nicolaus Copernicus had developed a theory in which Earth and the other planets revolved about the sun…In 1609, Galileo heard that an optical device had been built that made distant objects appear closer. He soon built his own telescope. The discoveries Galileo made with this instrument backed the Copernican theory over the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In 1616, however, the Roman Catholic Church warned Galileo not to teach that Earth revolves about the sun. A book of Galileo's published in 1632 was interpreted as a violation of the ban, and Galileo was put under house arrest. Only in 1992 did the Catholic Church confirm that Galileo should not have been tried or convicted.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

Astronomy, Observing the sky, Earth-centered theoriesAncient scholars produced elaborate schemes to account for the observed movements of the stars, sun, moon, and planets. In the 300's B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a system of 56 spheres, all with the same center. The innermost sphere, which did not move, was Earth.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

Consequently, the Roman Catholic Church approached the text of Joshua with the intent to support the popular, secular science of the time. If the Roman Catholic Church had not accepted the views of the pagan philosophers in this matter, then they might have instead simply interpreted Joshua 10 in light of the normal rules for textual interpretation and realized that Joshua was using an everyday expression and did not necessarily intend to make any definitive statements about the structure of the universe. As a result, the historical events between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church demonstrate the dangers and problems that arise when the Church (or an individual Christian) seeks to interpret a text with the preconceived intention to support modern, secular science rather than simply abiding by the normal rules of textual interpretation. Therefore, the experience of Galileo actually provides reasons not to interpret the text of Genesis with intention of supporting the modern secular theory of evolution while ignoring the normal rules of text interpretation.

The fifth objection offered by old earth creationists is that like the text of Joshua 10, the text of Genesis 1 becomes compatible with modern scientific theory if we take into account the “frame of reference” in the text. Here it is important to note that neither old earth creationists nor young earth creationists believe that the text of Joshua 10 actually disagrees with observable reality. In other words, neither side believes that Joshua 10 is declaring that the sun orbits the earth with the earth as the center. Young earth creationists believe that simply applying normal rules for interpretation and concluding that Joshua’s statements are common, everyday expressions sufficiently avoids any conflict. Old earth creationists believe that Joshua 10 must be interpreted in light of current scientific theory and so any potential conflict is alleviated in that way. And although young earth creationists reject the inclusion of current scientific theory in the process of text interpretation, through different processes ultimately both sides agree that Joshua’s statements reflect the normal perspective, or frame of reference, of an earthbound human being. Thus, when Joshua 10:12-13 states that the sun stood still, it is merely using the same type of everyday expression found in expressions like “sunrise,” “sundown,” and “nightfall”, which are casual, poetic figures of speech about the cycle of the sun from an earthbound frame of reference.

Here we arrive at the central concept of this fifth old earth creationist argument. Old earth creationists argue that we should assume the Genesis 1 is written from the same “frame of reference” or point of view as Joshua 10. In other words, old earth creationists assert that Genesis 1 is a description of how things looked from the surface of the earth. For example, when Genesis 1:3 states, “Let there be light: and there was light,” this does not mean that light was created but merely that light became visible on the surface of the earth for the first time at this point, penetrating a thick cloud cover suggested by old earth creationists. Similarly, when Genesis 1:16-17 states, “And God made two great lights” and “he made the stars also” and “set them in the firmament of the heaven,” these phrase are interpreted to mean that the sun, moon, and stars became visible to the surface of the earth rather than conveying that these items were created at this time. For instance, on page 153, old earth evolutionists Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer assert the following.

In Genesis 1 the Hebrew word to create something brand new which did not exist before (bara) is used just three times. It is used first for the creation of the universe, second for the creation of soulish animals, and last for the creation of spirit species, mankind.” – Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, The Genesis Debate, Crux Press, Inc., copyright 2001, p. 153

By extension, Ross and Archer mean to imply that all the objects listed in Genesis 1 are not “created brand new” but did exist before. On pages 193-194, the authors state this explicitly and further explain that the sun, moon, and stars simply became visible on Day 4 of Genesis 1 to a hypothetical observer on the earth’s surface.

“Taking a cue from Blocher, Irons and Kline charge that the Achilles heel of our day-age interpretation is the fourth-day appearance of the sun, moon, and stars. Note the word ‘appearance.” The text does not say that these luminaries were ‘created’ on the fourth day. In Genesis 1:14, the verb is haya (be or exist) not bara (create). From the perspective of an observer on earth’s surface, the existence of the luminaries could not be known until God transformed the earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent.” – Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, The Genesis Debate, Crux Press, Inc., copyright 2001, p. 193-94

Of course, as a matter of basic vocabulary, young earth creationists reject the suggestion that “bara” is the only Hebrew word that conveys to “create brand new” and the suggestion that “bara” and “haya” do not overlap in meaning. Instead, young earth creationists affirm that the meanings of “bara” and “haya” overlap and that both words convey the idea of “creating something which did not formerly exist.”

We also think that one of the most specious arguments is the one that tries to erect a strict wall of separation between haya and bara, as if those words alone somehow prove that the celestial lights only “appeared” on the fourth day.” – J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall, The Genesis Debate, Crux Press, Inc., copyright 2001, p. 111

As points 1a2 and 1a2a of the definition for “haya” state, “haya” can mean either “to appear” or “to come into being.”

01961 hayah
a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT-491; v
AV-was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 75
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) ––
1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
1a1b) to come about, come to pass
1a2) to come into being, become
1a2a) to arise, appear, come
1a2b) to become
1a2b1) to become
1a2b2) to become like
1a2b3) to be instituted, be established
1a3) to be
1a3a) to exist, be in existence
1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
1a3d) to accompany, be with
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

Consequently, the mere occurrence of “haya” in Genesis 1 does not favor the old earth interpretation. “Haya” does convey “coming into being” having not before existed, and so the occurrence of “haya” also works perfectly with the young earth interpretation that all the items in Genesis 1 were created rather than merely appearing. But beyond the disagreement over the vocabulary words “haya” and “bara,” there are 2 fundamental problems with this old earth creationist interpretive devise.

Number one, it does not resolve all of the incompatibilities between the text of Genesis 1 and the naturalist scientific timetable. Even if a “surface of the earth” frame of reference were assumed, the naturalist scientific timetable would still be contradicted by textual proofs that the days are literal, normal, 24-hour periods and by the order of events in Genesis 1.

Number two, and most importantly, the text of Genesis 1 specifically locates the “frame of reference” or “point of view” for us, leaving us no room to speculate that the perspective is “an observer on earth’s surface” as old earth creationists suggest. As we read through Genesis 1, we repeatedly find the phrase, “and God saw” after the creation events on each day.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

It seems quite clear that the author of Genesis very much wanted to reinforce that the point of view of Genesis 1 was God’s point of view, not “an observer on earth’s surface.” First, things don’t “seem” a certain way to God. Second, God doesn’t simply see things as they would “appear” from one limited vantage point, such as the surface of the earth. God is all-knowing and all-seeing. He sees everything from all sides. He sees everything in its totality as it actually is, not simply from one perspective. Third, these issues are further highlighted by the fact that God’s purpose in surveying these things is in order to judge their quality. It makes little sense for God to be judging the quality of the entire universe based solely on what is visible about those items from the surface of the earth. As such, when God declares what he has seen to be “good” and “very good,” we must understand that scripture intends to convey that God is pronouncing judgment based upon having seen all that there is about these things, not merely how they looked from the limited vantage point of the surface of the earth.

Consequently, Genesis 1 repeatedly and explicitly prevents us from concluding that the vantage point or frame of reference is a limited one, such as the surface of the earth. And instead, Genesis 1 repeatedly and explicitly identifies that the vantage point from which all the events are viewed is God’s all-knowing, all-seeing perspective from which he assesses and judges these things, having perceived them in their entirety rather than perceiving them only from limited perspective of the surface of the earth.

So, as we can see, the old earth creationist suggestion that the text of Genesis becomes compatible with the naturalist scientific timetable by simply relocating the perspective to “an observer on earth’s surface” does not accomplish their goal. It does not overturn the numerous hermeneutic proofs that the days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. It does not resolve the fact that the order of events in Genesis is incompatible with the order of naturalist geologic theory. And finally, it does not work because Genesis 1 already firmly identifies the frame of reference for creation as the perspective of God himself when He renders judgment.

A sixth objection that some have offered to 24-hour creation days recognizes that the seventh day is not spoken of in the same pattern as the preceding six days. Unlike the first six days of creation, God does not declare the seventh day as "good." Additionally, no evening and morning are mentioned in reference to the seventh day. But, it does not follow from this that the seventh day cannot be or was not a 24-hour period. A much simpler reason for the absence of such descriptions is available from the text and is directly related to a clear difference between the first six days and the seventh day.

On the first six days, God works. On the seventh day He rests. At the end of each work day God reviews His workmanship and declares that the work, not the day, is good. But on the seventh day God doesn't do any work. So, there is nothing for God to review or declare good on the seventh day. Nevertheless, God does say that the seventh day is holy. Similarly, on the first six days, God is actively creating during the evenings and the mornings. However, on the seventh day, God does not work, so no description of the day's events in terms of evening and morning is needed. Consequently, the lack of the terms “evenings” and “mornings” and the lack of God’s assessment of “good” on the seventh day do not in anyway indicate that either the seventh day was different from the other six creation days or that the seventh day was not a 24-hour period. And once again, there is no evidence supporting the old earth creationist interpretation that any of the creation week days were long ages of time or can accommodate long ages of time.


Conclusions

In summary, we can see that the old earth creationist view is incompatible with the text of scripture. There is no way to reconcile the naturalist scientific timetable with Genesis without overturning standard hermeneutic rules (the rules for text interpretation). Furthermore, the common objections offered by the old earth creationist view against the young earth model are also incapacitated by problems and errors. And, as our study on evolution and creation demonstrates, old earth creationism should not be accepted simply because all the physical, observable evidence points to a young earth and disproves overarching naturalist theory as a whole in the first place, including the naturalist scientific timetable and biological evolution. Consequently, the only conclusion we can come to is that the universe is young and was created in series of six, literal, 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. Having established this from the hermeneutic evidence in the text of the scriptural record, the age of the earth can also be examined from the observable, empirical evidence as well, which is the subject of our creation and evolution series.