God Created The World In 24 Hours Research Paper
“Should we insist God created the world in six consecutive days of 24 hours? What is at stake in maintaining this interpretation?
Introduction
One wonders why controversies surrounding the days of creation is divisive. After all, the world is created and what it is cannot be changed. Differences of opinion already exist within
Christianity over various doctrinal issues. Should we add yet another by insisting the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis are possible? For
Christians who hold the young earth view, being true to God’s Word necessitates believing in the universe, earth, and life were all created in six 24-hour days. For others who hold a variety of opinions, they write off six-day …show more content…
creation as naïve fundamentalism or gross bibliolatry appealing to the need to update what is seemingly an archaic view. Thus, there is the need to examine and consider the stake in the creation debate.
Body Paragraphs
Firstly, we should insist on the six day creation because the scripture teaches the twentyfour hour view. James Barr, the then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University though a liberal, clearly understood what the Hebrew taught. He wrote; “probably, so far as I know, there is no professor or Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same 24 hours we now experience”.1 In a book,
“Genesis Debate – Three Views”, Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall expressed that the
1
For details of the letter, please refer to James Barr. Letter to David C.C. Watson, 1984. http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/barrlett.html. Cited 2 May 2013.
“simplest explanation of the text…is that Moses intended the days to be thought of in the most common sense of that term”.
2
Thus when Moses, under the inspiration of God compiled the
creation account, he used the Hebrew word yôm for ‘day’. He combined yôm with numbers (e.g.
‘first day’, ‘second day’ etc) and with words ‘evening and morning’. This was evident the very first time Moses used it, in Genesis 1:5, where he carefully defined yôm as being one day and night cycle. Thereafter, when used this way always refer to a normal 24-hour day throughout the
Bible.3 If God wanted Moses wanted to convey other periods of time, He could have inspired him to use other Hebrew words such as qedem, olam or moed for longer periods of time or dor to indicate a continuation of the past into the future.4 Furthermore, if we follow the hermeneutical principle that scripture interprets scripture, we would likewise affirm creation to be six 24-hour days as well. Thus Genesis 1:31-2:2, where God worked six days and rested on the seventh is supported by the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 where man is commanded to labour in six days and rest of the seventh. Here, the literal days of man should be the same as those of creation week or else it will make no sense.
Secondly, we should insist on the six-day creation because the church has almost always understood it as so until the nineteenth century and the advent of evolutionary theory. Most
Church Fathers (AD 100-600), theologians after the apostles would have understood Genesis 1 in the literal sense. Men like Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (AD 306-373), Basil of Caesarea (AD
2
J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall quoted in The Creation Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation,
David G. Hagopian, Editor (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), p. 31.
3
When yôm is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Genesis 1) or by
‘evening and/or morning’, (used 38 times outside Genesis 1), it is always taken to be a literal day.
4
For good article that provides details of alternative Hebrew words that could be used to convey longer period of time, please refer to Russell Grigg, How long were the days of Genesis one’. http://creation.com/how-long-werethe-days-of-genesis-1. Cited 2 May 2013.
2
329-379) and Ambrose of Milan (AD 330-397) believed that 24 hours fill up the space of one day. Others like Josephus (AD 37-100), Tatian (AD 110-180) and Jerome (AD 347-420) may be less clear but few like Origen and Augustine opted for the allegorical method of interpretation.5
Even then, the latter took non literal days as part of divine activity, never having naturalistic nor evolutionary concepts in mind.6 Although medieval theologians7 (AD 600-1517) followed
Augustine, viewing creation as instantaneous or as a literary framework, the sixteenth century
Reformers rejected non-literal interpretation and returned to a literal and grammatical interpretation (hermeneutically known as the historical-grammatical method).8 Luther wrote,
“We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e.
that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read”.9 The same expression is likewise echoed by Calvin’s Genesis 1:5.10 Even though major church creeds did not take definite position on the length of days in creation,11 suggesting that it was not
5
For a table of Church Fathers taking on the 3 positions of the length of days of creations namely; 24 hour, Figure and Unclear, see Rob Bradshaw, “Chapter 3: The Days of Genesis 1” in Creationism and Early Church . . http://www.robibradshaw.com/chapter3.htm. Cited 5 May 2013.
6
For quotes by Church Fathers in support for the literal days rather than non-literal ones, see Orthodox Christianity. http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/02/creation/. Cited 2 May 2013.
7
Medieval theologians like Bede (c AD 673-735) and Anselm of Canterbury (c. AD 1033-1109) adopted views similar to Augustine.
8
For a discussion on what Genesis should be taken literally unlike some of the other books in the
Bible, see Russell Grigg, Should Genesis be taken literally. http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally.
Cited 25 May 2013.
9
Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1958), p. 5. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Luther 's%20Works%201%20Lectures%20on%20Genesis%2015.pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
10
For details, see John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis-Vol 1. http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/C/Calvin%20%20Genesis%20Vol%201%20(b).pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
11
Neither the Apostle Creed, the Nicene Creed, The Heidelberg Catechism nor the Belgic Confession specify the length of creation days. However neither did they dispute what was written in the Westminster Confession of Faith as well.
3
considered of primary importance, the Westminster Confession (1647) did however clearly affirm that God created the world and all things “in the space of six days” (WCF IV:1). The word day is further specified as the natural day consisting 24 hours in the Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testaments (Westminster Annotations, 1964) concerning Genesis
1:5. Since a Confession is simply a declaration of belief in religious truth derived from scriptures, a denial of the 6 24-hour day of creation would invariably deny the literal interpretation of the creation account of the Bible.
Thirdly, we should insist on the six-day creation because of the influences of modernism into the church. The concept of longer time periods made its way into the understanding of
Earth’s origins in the wake of publications by scholars in the mid-17th century such as John
Lightfoot and James Ussher followed swiftly others from the 1700s by others like James Hutton
(1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875) who started to reinterpret Genesis “days” of creation in the non-literal way. The rise of Darwinism in the 1800s caused even more to question the 24hour day interpretation since Darwin theorizes the evolving of lower forms of life into higher forms over a very long period of time. Since a number of theories have been popularised, all challenging the 6-day creation and accepting the dominant scientific view that the earth and life on it are very old. Three of the popularly accepted ones, apart from the 6-day creation are the gap theory, the day-age theory and the framework hypothesis;12 each essentially repudiates the literal interpretation of “days” of creation. Whatever other form that emerges thereof, their growing acceptance in churches has become a major threat to the authority of the Scriptures.
12
Details of the 3 theories are available in common. The gap theory was popularized by the Scofield Reference
Bible (1909). On the other hand, the Framework hypothesis was popularized by Professor Meridith Klein (19222007) and French theologian Henri Blocher. A brief survey can be found in What is R.C. Sproul’s Position on
Creation. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/. Cited 3 May 2013.
4
The stake in maintaining this interpretation is fundamentally the perspicuity of Scripture.
This doctrine of the clarity of Scripture teaches that the meaning of the text can be clear to ordinary people, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will. If the
6-day creation can be interpreted in a non-literal sense, then any attempt to understand other parts of Scripture is undermined. Many other positions like that of the Roman Catholic Church and that of cults assert that Scripture is imperspicuous (unclear). Certainly, the creation account is made more confusing through the lens of modern English Bible, as a result the original text have sometimes been lost or changed in translating it into modern English.13 The rejection of biblical creation at the very beginning pages of the Bible (Genesis 1-2) could very well bring into question the clarity of other biblical truths. Consequently many major cults deny the biblical creation. If Scripture cannot definitively express something as fundamental as the origin of life, then this opens itself to extra biblical sources of “truth”. Consequently, science in the hands of men like Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, are placed on the same as or even a higher plane of authority than Scripture.14 More specifically, if science is correct in proving the earth as old i.e. millions and billions of years then one has either to abandon Genesis 1-2 as a myth as a result of a loss of biblical authority or embrace the passage with some degree of truth but with a watered downed form of biblical authority. A way that bible scholars accommodate Scripture to the demand of science is to interpret the days of creation in a non-literal way as discussed. The
13
For instance, in Scofield Reference Bible, Genesis 1:2 is written “And the earth became without form” while other
Bibles read “And the earth was without form”. The Scofield Reference Bible translated “became” instead of “was” in order to facilitate the gap theory.
14
Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer defend the view that the Genesis creation days are six sequential ages of time of unspecified but finite duration (the day-age view).
5
argument goes that this subject does not impact the Gospel as it only affects biblical authority about the origin of the universe. Therefore, the six 24-hour day of creation does not really matter since it does not affect one’s salvation after hearing an exposition of Genesis 1-2. What really counts is that the Gospel is proclaimed, so say such arguments. Even Princeton Theological
Seminary,15 the most notable theologian B. B. Warfield held a broad view which accepts evolution as a proper scientific account of human origins. As historian Mark Noll expressed, “B.
B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist”.16 Similar challenges are faced with other seminaries like that of Westminster Theological Seminary in its paper which expressed that “the exegetical question of the length of days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms”.17
However it is not true that the creation day has no adverse impact on the Gospel. If a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis is accepted, then the fall of man into sin cannot be simply attributed to one man, Adam. A long period of creation could mean that there must have been a longer gestation of disobedience before man’s fall. But Scripture teaches that death came through one man. Roman 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin…” Furthermore, there would be a problem understanding the fall as a singular act of disobedience. Genesis 1:16-17 clearly states that “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely
15
Princeton Theological Seminary in the 19th Century has been known for its staunch defense of conservative
Calvinism and absolute authority of Scripture.
16
For details, please read Westminster Theological Seminary http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html. Cited 3 May 2013.
17
and
the
Days
of
Creation.
Are all who die in infancy saved? http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/Infancy/3._Declaratory_Statements.html Cited
11 May 2012.
6
die”. If sin didn’t enter into the world by an act of disobedience of one man (Adam) then new life cannot likewise be given by an act of obedience of one man (Christ, the God-man). Paul in 1
Corinthians 15:21 clearly states that “for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive”. And if, Adam’s death was said to be only of a spiritual death, and likewise Christ’s coming was of spiritual significance, then one runs into scriptural problems as the fall included both spiritual and physical death. Genesis 3:17-19 explicitly states that the whole earth was cursed because of the fall into sin and that man is not spared from physical death as well.
Therefore, serious considerations have to be addressed if one rejects biblical creation for it invariably undermines the very foundations of the gospel.
The rejection of creation as “days” in plain words written as by Moses also undermines the very person and work of Christ. Jesus said in John 5:46-47 that “if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Jesus Himself has endorsed the Moses’ record of creation and question those who will believe in Him if they do not pay heed to Moses. Notice what he said in Matthew
19:3-6 and in Luke 16:31. He says that “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning…” and “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead”. Therefore if Christians doubt Moses teachings about creation days, then there can no stops in positing myriad possibilities where it comes to Jesus resurrection. Finally, the rejection of creation days would affect our keeping of Sabbath as believers.
Without the literal six-day creation, there will be no theology to keep the fourth command which
7
is to keep the Sabbath day holy. The very point of Moses literal explanation is to remind us of
Sabbath day. It is a day commanded by God as part of the six previous days of the creation account. Just as God “rested on the seventh day…blessed the seventh day and sanctified it…”
(Genesis 2:2-3), we are told likewise to do so in Exodus 20:8-11. One cannot simply treat the creation days differently from the human days as it’ll take away its biblical basis of worship on
Sabbath. If the church could meet on any other day in place of Sabbath, then there is nothing to stop individual Christian from designating his own holy day. Christians can even worship individually rather than come together as a Church! Without the six-day creation, time reference is lost and the Sabbath day could be relegated as a convenient expression.
We can therefore conclude the need to insist that God created the word in 6 literal days of
24 hours. While we may not possess inexplicable scientific proof to persuade all sceptics nor convince all detractors of it, the same can be said of those who reject God even if proof is inexplicably presented to them. Jesus said in John 10:25, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name…because you are not of My sheep”.
8
Bibliography
Barr, James. Letter to David C.C. Watson, 1984. http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/barrlett.html. Cited 2 May 2013.
Bradshaw, Rob. “Chapter 3: The Days of Genesis 1” in Creationism and Early Church. http://www.robibradshaw.com/chapter3.htm. Cited 5 May 2013.
Calvin, John. Commentary on Genesis Vol 1. http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/C/Calvin%2020Genesis%20Vol%201%20(b).pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
Gentry, Kenneth L. Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation. http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html. Cited 7 May 2013.
Grigg, Russell. How long were the days of Genesis One. http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1. Cited 2 May 2013.
Hagopian, David G. The Creation Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Mission Viejo,
CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001.
Hall, David W. What was the View of the Westminster Assembly Divines on Creation Days? http://www.reformed.org/creation/index.html. Cited 10 May 2013.
Luther, Martin. Lectures on Genesis: Chapter 1-5. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1958. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Luther 's%20Works%201%20Lectures%20on%20Gen esis%201-5.pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record. A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of
Beginnings. Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976.
Orthodox Christianity. http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/02/creation/. Cited 2 May
2013.
Schlehr, Karisa. What is R.C. Sproul’s Position on Creation. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/. Cited 3 May
2013.
The Catholic Doctrine of Six-Day Creation. http://www.kolbecenter.org/?s=the+cathloic+doctrine+on+the+six+day+creation. Cited 4 May 2013.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Creation. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_calvincreation.h tml. Cited 10 May 2013.
9
Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation. http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html. Cited 3 May 2013.
Cited 3 May 2013.
The Early Church on Creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/early-church-on-creation. Cited 4 May 2013.
10
Introduction
One wonders why controversies surrounding the days of creation is divisive. After all, the world is created and what it is cannot be changed. Differences of opinion already exist within
Christianity over various doctrinal issues. Should we add yet another by insisting the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis are possible? For
Christians who hold the young earth view, being true to God’s Word necessitates believing in the universe, earth, and life were all created in six 24-hour days. For others who hold a variety of opinions, they write off six-day …show more content…
creation as naïve fundamentalism or gross bibliolatry appealing to the need to update what is seemingly an archaic view. Thus, there is the need to examine and consider the stake in the creation debate.
Body Paragraphs
Firstly, we should insist on the six day creation because the scripture teaches the twentyfour hour view. James Barr, the then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University though a liberal, clearly understood what the Hebrew taught. He wrote; “probably, so far as I know, there is no professor or Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same 24 hours we now experience”.1 In a book,
“Genesis Debate – Three Views”, Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall expressed that the
1
For details of the letter, please refer to James Barr. Letter to David C.C. Watson, 1984. http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/barrlett.html. Cited 2 May 2013.
“simplest explanation of the text…is that Moses intended the days to be thought of in the most common sense of that term”.
2
Thus when Moses, under the inspiration of God compiled the
creation account, he used the Hebrew word yôm for ‘day’. He combined yôm with numbers (e.g.
‘first day’, ‘second day’ etc) and with words ‘evening and morning’. This was evident the very first time Moses used it, in Genesis 1:5, where he carefully defined yôm as being one day and night cycle. Thereafter, when used this way always refer to a normal 24-hour day throughout the
Bible.3 If God wanted Moses wanted to convey other periods of time, He could have inspired him to use other Hebrew words such as qedem, olam or moed for longer periods of time or dor to indicate a continuation of the past into the future.4 Furthermore, if we follow the hermeneutical principle that scripture interprets scripture, we would likewise affirm creation to be six 24-hour days as well. Thus Genesis 1:31-2:2, where God worked six days and rested on the seventh is supported by the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 where man is commanded to labour in six days and rest of the seventh. Here, the literal days of man should be the same as those of creation week or else it will make no sense.
Secondly, we should insist on the six-day creation because the church has almost always understood it as so until the nineteenth century and the advent of evolutionary theory. Most
Church Fathers (AD 100-600), theologians after the apostles would have understood Genesis 1 in the literal sense. Men like Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (AD 306-373), Basil of Caesarea (AD
2
J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall quoted in The Creation Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation,
David G. Hagopian, Editor (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), p. 31.
3
When yôm is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Genesis 1) or by
‘evening and/or morning’, (used 38 times outside Genesis 1), it is always taken to be a literal day.
4
For good article that provides details of alternative Hebrew words that could be used to convey longer period of time, please refer to Russell Grigg, How long were the days of Genesis one’. http://creation.com/how-long-werethe-days-of-genesis-1. Cited 2 May 2013.
2
329-379) and Ambrose of Milan (AD 330-397) believed that 24 hours fill up the space of one day. Others like Josephus (AD 37-100), Tatian (AD 110-180) and Jerome (AD 347-420) may be less clear but few like Origen and Augustine opted for the allegorical method of interpretation.5
Even then, the latter took non literal days as part of divine activity, never having naturalistic nor evolutionary concepts in mind.6 Although medieval theologians7 (AD 600-1517) followed
Augustine, viewing creation as instantaneous or as a literary framework, the sixteenth century
Reformers rejected non-literal interpretation and returned to a literal and grammatical interpretation (hermeneutically known as the historical-grammatical method).8 Luther wrote,
“We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e.
that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read”.9 The same expression is likewise echoed by Calvin’s Genesis 1:5.10 Even though major church creeds did not take definite position on the length of days in creation,11 suggesting that it was not
5
For a table of Church Fathers taking on the 3 positions of the length of days of creations namely; 24 hour, Figure and Unclear, see Rob Bradshaw, “Chapter 3: The Days of Genesis 1” in Creationism and Early Church . . http://www.robibradshaw.com/chapter3.htm. Cited 5 May 2013.
6
For quotes by Church Fathers in support for the literal days rather than non-literal ones, see Orthodox Christianity. http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/02/creation/. Cited 2 May 2013.
7
Medieval theologians like Bede (c AD 673-735) and Anselm of Canterbury (c. AD 1033-1109) adopted views similar to Augustine.
8
For a discussion on what Genesis should be taken literally unlike some of the other books in the
Bible, see Russell Grigg, Should Genesis be taken literally. http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally.
Cited 25 May 2013.
9
Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1958), p. 5. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Luther 's%20Works%201%20Lectures%20on%20Genesis%2015.pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
10
For details, see John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis-Vol 1. http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/C/Calvin%20%20Genesis%20Vol%201%20(b).pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
11
Neither the Apostle Creed, the Nicene Creed, The Heidelberg Catechism nor the Belgic Confession specify the length of creation days. However neither did they dispute what was written in the Westminster Confession of Faith as well.
3
considered of primary importance, the Westminster Confession (1647) did however clearly affirm that God created the world and all things “in the space of six days” (WCF IV:1). The word day is further specified as the natural day consisting 24 hours in the Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testaments (Westminster Annotations, 1964) concerning Genesis
1:5. Since a Confession is simply a declaration of belief in religious truth derived from scriptures, a denial of the 6 24-hour day of creation would invariably deny the literal interpretation of the creation account of the Bible.
Thirdly, we should insist on the six-day creation because of the influences of modernism into the church. The concept of longer time periods made its way into the understanding of
Earth’s origins in the wake of publications by scholars in the mid-17th century such as John
Lightfoot and James Ussher followed swiftly others from the 1700s by others like James Hutton
(1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875) who started to reinterpret Genesis “days” of creation in the non-literal way. The rise of Darwinism in the 1800s caused even more to question the 24hour day interpretation since Darwin theorizes the evolving of lower forms of life into higher forms over a very long period of time. Since a number of theories have been popularised, all challenging the 6-day creation and accepting the dominant scientific view that the earth and life on it are very old. Three of the popularly accepted ones, apart from the 6-day creation are the gap theory, the day-age theory and the framework hypothesis;12 each essentially repudiates the literal interpretation of “days” of creation. Whatever other form that emerges thereof, their growing acceptance in churches has become a major threat to the authority of the Scriptures.
12
Details of the 3 theories are available in common. The gap theory was popularized by the Scofield Reference
Bible (1909). On the other hand, the Framework hypothesis was popularized by Professor Meridith Klein (19222007) and French theologian Henri Blocher. A brief survey can be found in What is R.C. Sproul’s Position on
Creation. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/. Cited 3 May 2013.
4
The stake in maintaining this interpretation is fundamentally the perspicuity of Scripture.
This doctrine of the clarity of Scripture teaches that the meaning of the text can be clear to ordinary people, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will. If the
6-day creation can be interpreted in a non-literal sense, then any attempt to understand other parts of Scripture is undermined. Many other positions like that of the Roman Catholic Church and that of cults assert that Scripture is imperspicuous (unclear). Certainly, the creation account is made more confusing through the lens of modern English Bible, as a result the original text have sometimes been lost or changed in translating it into modern English.13 The rejection of biblical creation at the very beginning pages of the Bible (Genesis 1-2) could very well bring into question the clarity of other biblical truths. Consequently many major cults deny the biblical creation. If Scripture cannot definitively express something as fundamental as the origin of life, then this opens itself to extra biblical sources of “truth”. Consequently, science in the hands of men like Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, are placed on the same as or even a higher plane of authority than Scripture.14 More specifically, if science is correct in proving the earth as old i.e. millions and billions of years then one has either to abandon Genesis 1-2 as a myth as a result of a loss of biblical authority or embrace the passage with some degree of truth but with a watered downed form of biblical authority. A way that bible scholars accommodate Scripture to the demand of science is to interpret the days of creation in a non-literal way as discussed. The
13
For instance, in Scofield Reference Bible, Genesis 1:2 is written “And the earth became without form” while other
Bibles read “And the earth was without form”. The Scofield Reference Bible translated “became” instead of “was” in order to facilitate the gap theory.
14
Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer defend the view that the Genesis creation days are six sequential ages of time of unspecified but finite duration (the day-age view).
5
argument goes that this subject does not impact the Gospel as it only affects biblical authority about the origin of the universe. Therefore, the six 24-hour day of creation does not really matter since it does not affect one’s salvation after hearing an exposition of Genesis 1-2. What really counts is that the Gospel is proclaimed, so say such arguments. Even Princeton Theological
Seminary,15 the most notable theologian B. B. Warfield held a broad view which accepts evolution as a proper scientific account of human origins. As historian Mark Noll expressed, “B.
B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist”.16 Similar challenges are faced with other seminaries like that of Westminster Theological Seminary in its paper which expressed that “the exegetical question of the length of days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms”.17
However it is not true that the creation day has no adverse impact on the Gospel. If a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis is accepted, then the fall of man into sin cannot be simply attributed to one man, Adam. A long period of creation could mean that there must have been a longer gestation of disobedience before man’s fall. But Scripture teaches that death came through one man. Roman 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin…” Furthermore, there would be a problem understanding the fall as a singular act of disobedience. Genesis 1:16-17 clearly states that “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely
15
Princeton Theological Seminary in the 19th Century has been known for its staunch defense of conservative
Calvinism and absolute authority of Scripture.
16
For details, please read Westminster Theological Seminary http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html. Cited 3 May 2013.
17
and
the
Days
of
Creation.
Are all who die in infancy saved? http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/Infancy/3._Declaratory_Statements.html Cited
11 May 2012.
6
die”. If sin didn’t enter into the world by an act of disobedience of one man (Adam) then new life cannot likewise be given by an act of obedience of one man (Christ, the God-man). Paul in 1
Corinthians 15:21 clearly states that “for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive”. And if, Adam’s death was said to be only of a spiritual death, and likewise Christ’s coming was of spiritual significance, then one runs into scriptural problems as the fall included both spiritual and physical death. Genesis 3:17-19 explicitly states that the whole earth was cursed because of the fall into sin and that man is not spared from physical death as well.
Therefore, serious considerations have to be addressed if one rejects biblical creation for it invariably undermines the very foundations of the gospel.
The rejection of creation as “days” in plain words written as by Moses also undermines the very person and work of Christ. Jesus said in John 5:46-47 that “if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Jesus Himself has endorsed the Moses’ record of creation and question those who will believe in Him if they do not pay heed to Moses. Notice what he said in Matthew
19:3-6 and in Luke 16:31. He says that “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning…” and “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead”. Therefore if Christians doubt Moses teachings about creation days, then there can no stops in positing myriad possibilities where it comes to Jesus resurrection. Finally, the rejection of creation days would affect our keeping of Sabbath as believers.
Without the literal six-day creation, there will be no theology to keep the fourth command which
7
is to keep the Sabbath day holy. The very point of Moses literal explanation is to remind us of
Sabbath day. It is a day commanded by God as part of the six previous days of the creation account. Just as God “rested on the seventh day…blessed the seventh day and sanctified it…”
(Genesis 2:2-3), we are told likewise to do so in Exodus 20:8-11. One cannot simply treat the creation days differently from the human days as it’ll take away its biblical basis of worship on
Sabbath. If the church could meet on any other day in place of Sabbath, then there is nothing to stop individual Christian from designating his own holy day. Christians can even worship individually rather than come together as a Church! Without the six-day creation, time reference is lost and the Sabbath day could be relegated as a convenient expression.
We can therefore conclude the need to insist that God created the word in 6 literal days of
24 hours. While we may not possess inexplicable scientific proof to persuade all sceptics nor convince all detractors of it, the same can be said of those who reject God even if proof is inexplicably presented to them. Jesus said in John 10:25, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name…because you are not of My sheep”.
8
Bibliography
Barr, James. Letter to David C.C. Watson, 1984. http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/barrlett.html. Cited 2 May 2013.
Bradshaw, Rob. “Chapter 3: The Days of Genesis 1” in Creationism and Early Church. http://www.robibradshaw.com/chapter3.htm. Cited 5 May 2013.
Calvin, John. Commentary on Genesis Vol 1. http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/C/Calvin%2020Genesis%20Vol%201%20(b).pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
Gentry, Kenneth L. Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation. http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html. Cited 7 May 2013.
Grigg, Russell. How long were the days of Genesis One. http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1. Cited 2 May 2013.
Hagopian, David G. The Creation Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Mission Viejo,
CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001.
Hall, David W. What was the View of the Westminster Assembly Divines on Creation Days? http://www.reformed.org/creation/index.html. Cited 10 May 2013.
Luther, Martin. Lectures on Genesis: Chapter 1-5. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1958. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Luther 's%20Works%201%20Lectures%20on%20Gen esis%201-5.pdf. Cited 2 May 2013.
Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record. A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of
Beginnings. Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976.
Orthodox Christianity. http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/02/creation/. Cited 2 May
2013.
Schlehr, Karisa. What is R.C. Sproul’s Position on Creation. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/. Cited 3 May
2013.
The Catholic Doctrine of Six-Day Creation. http://www.kolbecenter.org/?s=the+cathloic+doctrine+on+the+six+day+creation. Cited 4 May 2013.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Creation. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_calvincreation.h tml. Cited 10 May 2013.
9
Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation. http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html. Cited 3 May 2013.
Cited 3 May 2013.
The Early Church on Creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/early-church-on-creation. Cited 4 May 2013.
10