BCOE: Day 1 of Creation - Light

Please read these Bible passages before we get into Genesis 1:2-5:

1) And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, and God said, “Let there come to be [“hayah,” היה] light,” and there came to be [“hayah,” היה] light.  And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was [“hayah,” היה] evening and there was [“hayah,” היה] morning, the first day.  –Genesis 1:2b-5

2) He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.  –Job 26:10

3) Because it is God who said, “Out of [ἐκ] darkness [σκότος] light shall shine,” who shone in our hearts to give the brightness of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.  –2 Cor. 4:6

4) When He established the heavens, I was there; when He drew a circle on the face of the deep . . . –Prov. 8:27

Genesis 1:2-5

Now, notice that in accordance with our previous understanding that the darkness was from the perspective of the surface, we see that the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  This reinforces the established point of perspective for what follows.  The “light” coming to be was from the perspective of the surface of earth, as well.  Our previous understand was that, according to Job 38:8, the cloud cover or thick, steamy atmosphere was what cause great darkness on earth.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the appearance of light from the surface was due to the thinning of the steamy atmosphere.

Genesis 1:2b-5 clearly allows for this to have been a process occurring in time, since the word “hayah” (היה), often meaning “to come to pass,” occurs here twice.  Approximately 1 in 5 to 10 of the instances of this word is translated in the KJV as “it came to pass.”  So, this is a perfectly valid and natural meaning of the word.

Here are the questions that naturally come up initially when looking at these Genesis verses for the first time.  How was there light before the sun?  What was this light?  How was there day and night before the sun?  What does it mean that God separated the light from the darkness?  How was there evening and morning before the sun?

All of these questions are easily answered in the old earth view.  The young earth view comes to the following conclusions—or something similar.  The light was light either in outer space or from the shekinah glory from the Lord.  The light could have been created by God without the sun.  The light was similar to the light of the sun and illuminated only one side of the earth.  The separation of the darkness and light is either (1) a reiteration of God making light for one side of the earth, or (2) the light being gathered together to one side of the earth.  The light in outer space was sufficient to make evening and morning until Day 4.  (Of course, if our view of the darkness coming from thick cloudiness is correct, then the whole idea of special light being made apart from the sun is unnecessary.)

To me, these answers are less than satisfactory.  I never felt completely comfortable with these answers, even when I was convinced of a young earth position.  However, the old earth view has much more appealing answers.  The sun was around, but it was not visible and was obscured by cloud cover and probably pollution in the atmosphere.  The light was from the sun.  There was typical night and day as a result.  God sovereignly intensified the light by diminishing the thickness and thus separated the light from the darkness through the process of time.  So, the “separation” involved making the contrast between the light and darkness greater and greater over time.  There are two words in Hebrew describing the “separation”, and they mean approximately: to divide or distinguish (“badal”, בּדל) and between (“beyn”, בּין).  God was causing there to be a distinguishment between light and darkness.  The verb aspect of the word “distinguish” (בּדל) is in the imperfect, which could indicate an ongoing process was taking place, as the old earth view requires.

How Long is a “Day”?

So, now let’s get down to business.  What is a “day”?  How can it possibly mean a long period of time, especially since it uses the language “evening and morning”?  The answer is not simple, and I believe that this argument is one of the two hardest questions to answer that are presented by the young earth view.

Many young earth creationists play the statistics game with “yom” and subtly suggest that because it is almost always used to refer to a standard day that it must mean a normal day in Genesis 1.  This is bad logic and bad exegesis.  Arguing from the statistical usage of a word is not a proper way to determine the meaning of a particular text.  It is unreasonable to argue this way, and I frankly have no respect for this type of argument.  They also try to say that when “yom” is used in relation to “evening” and “morning” that it is should mean a standard 24-hour day.  However, this argument lacks credibility since it is not always the case.  Jos. 8:29 breaks this supposed rule, since it uses “yom” in the same way that we would say, “In our day, airplanes are the best way to travel.”  Other passages of the 41 cases that break this so-called rule are: Prov. 7:9, Judges 19:8, Job 1:5, Amos 4:4 (where “days” means “years”).  Therefore, 5 of 41, or about 12% of the passages break this “rule”.

Another argument is that when “yom” is used with an ordinal like “one” or “two” it is always referring to a standard day.  This is highly debatable, however.  Passages that seem to be possible violations of this idea are: 1 Samuel 27:1, Isaiah 9:14, Hosea 6:2, Zech. 14:7.  Let me focus in on Hosea 6:2: “After two days will He revive us: in the third day [yom] He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight.”  A common interpretation of this is that these days are periods of time—perhaps a thousand years each.  There is no reason to believe that these are literal 24-hour days.    Zechariah 14:7 says, “But it shall be one day [yom] which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.” The words “one day” are identical and their order is the same as those of Genesis 1:5. The whole of Zechariah 14 mentions “in that day” eight times and seems to be speaking of the “day of the Lord,” and a whole time period.  Few commentators would dispute that this “day” could be longer than 24 hours.  In fact, most scholars would argue that it is a “day” (period) that is longer than 24 hours.

The word “day” (“yom,” יום) means according to Strong’s Concordance: “From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day . . . whether literally . . . or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially).”  As you can see from the last part, this word is not guaranteed to be any particular length of time, and can represent a long period in the figurative usage.  Vine’s Expository Dictionary says much more bluntly, “Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration . . .”

As to it being “defined by an associated term,” this does not appear to always be the case, looking at how the word is used in the Old Testament.  The word is translated various ways in the KJV, and is sometimes used as a “time” that is not defined as in Gen. 30:33 and 1 Sam. 14:18.  These examples can be easily demonstrated to be periods of time longer than 24 hours, even though the Hebrew word is singular in the listed examples. 

Also, as we’ve already noted, Genesis 2:4 (“. . . in the day [yom] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens . . .”) seems to use the singular word “yom” to indicate a period of at least two 24-hour days.  Some well-known and respected commentators such as John Gill state quite unequivocally that this is a longer period of time than a single standard 24-hour day: “meaning not any particular day, not the first day, in which the heavens and the earth were created; but referring to the whole time of the six days, in which everything in them, and relating to them, were made.”  Matthew Poole says of the “day”, “not strictly [a day] so called, but largely taken for the time, as it is Gen 2:17, Ruth 4:5, Luke 19:42, 2 Cor. 6:2.”  Neither of these Bible scholars had any belief in long ages in Genesis 1 for the days.  The best evidence that Genesis 2:4 is talking about more than a single 24-hour period is the whole context:

These were the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens: and no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground . . . –vv. 4-6

Notice what it says, carefully.  This phrase “in the day” appears quite clearly to be talking about when God had made the “earth and the heavens” and also when the solid ground had been created.  It is being called a single day.  The “heavens and earth” were made on or before Day 1, and the ground was created on Day 3.  Even if you take “heavens” to be just the “sky,” you still have a minimum of more than a single 24-hour creation day, because the “sky” was made during Day 2 and the “land” was made during Day 3.  (Looking at how the land was formed, it appears to have been a process, and wasn’t an instantaneous creation.  The time taken to creation the whole of the sky and land was probably at least 30 hours taking “day” to be a standard day.  The creation of the sky and land happened on two separate days and not in a single “day.”) With this in mind, we see clearly that “yom” as used in the creation account is not always a 24-hour period. Genesis 1-2 attests to the ability of “yom” to mean a longer period.

I would also quickly note that “the generations” seems more appropriate for six ages than for six days.  Why doesn’t it say, “This was the week of the heavens and the earth when they were created”?  The word for “generations” is elsewhere always used of human lineage and descent, and it would normally be speaking of a much longer period of time than a week.

“Day” in Genesis 1 as translated in the Septuagint is a Greek word that also easily means a period of time when used figuratively and is not always referring to a strict 24-hour period.  This is significant especially when you refer to Hebrews 4:4, where the author appears to quote from the Septuagint and uses this word (‘hemera,’ ἡμέρα).  And, yes, there is a Greek word that does mean a strict, night-and-day cycle of exactly 24-hours.

Finally, in the same context of Genesis, God told Adam that he would die “in the day” that he ate of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 2:17).  Though Adam may have indeed died spiritually the same day he rebelled against God, it is hard to believe that God did not also intend physical death as well—and primarily so.  However, Adam did not die until about a thousand years later!  It follows that the “yom” that God was talking about was a period of time rather than a 24-hour day.  I doubt that Adam and Eve were under any illusions that God had lied.

One other point that needs to be made is that the usage of “day” is definitely not incidental or pointless.  It is fair to ask, “Why did God use the word ‘yom’ when He could have used ‘generation/age’ (‘dor,’ דּור) or some other word which could more easily mean an epoch of time?”  My answer to that is simple, though perhaps not fully satisfactory for some: God was intentionally presenting the Creation as a week for a pattern for mankind.  Moses, by inspiration from God, was presenting the creation account as a week with the seventh day being a day of rest, in order to demonstrate the importance of keeping a weekly cycle and the Sabbath.  Every word choice is significant.

Evening and Morning

So, what about the “evening and morning” phrase?  We reiterate that Genesis does use some poetic language at times.  I will freely and openly admit that “evening and morning” is a kind of poetic flourish with a figurative meaning; it could mean “the ending of this ‘day’ came and another ‘day’ began.”  The words “evening” and “morning” are flexible enough in their definitions to allow for this interpretation.  “Evening” means most naturally “dusk,” and “morning” most naturally means “dawn.”  The Hebrew uses “evening” and “morning” figuratively in Psalm 90:6, “In the morning it [the grass] flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers.”  Clearly, this isn’t saying that grass dies in a single day, since grass has a longer lifespan than a day.  Even in English we use these kinds of words metaphorically, and speak of the “dawn of a new age,” or the “the sun set on the Roman empire,” or the “twilight of his life.”

If “evening and morning” are taken literally, then you do not have a 24-hour day, but no more than 16 hours.  Evening typically lasts from about 4PM to 12AM at the longest, and morning from 4AM to 12PM at the longest.  When we use the “dawn” and “dusk” literal meanings, the combined time is even shorter, making no more than a few hours.  Evening was started at around sunset in Hebrew culture.  Morning would never typically run through the afternoon until evening.

The only place that seems to use evening and morning to refer to a 24-hour period is Daniel 8:14, and in that place it says literally, “Until evening-morning 2300 . . .”  In this case, there are no conjugate words such as “and”.  It is just “evening-morning,” both being singular.  Genesis 1 uses a phrase that literally means, “There was [or became] evening and there was [or became] morning . . .”  There is little similarity between these two verses. 

Genesis 1 should have said something like, “So evening-morning was day X,” or at least “evening and morning were day X,” rather than saying, “There was evening. . .”  The language is unusual.  The literal translation of the phrase “evening and morning were the nth day” is actually, “It became evening and it became morning; day X.”  It appears forced upon the text to translate it as “evening and morning were the nth day.”  The meaning does not seem to be that the day was comprised of the “evening and morning” as most young earth proponents will argue, but rather just that evening and morning came.  What I am saying is that the wording in Genesis could easily have been more clearly saying that evening and morning composed a day period.  The word “hayah” (היה) meaning to “come to pass” does not belong in the phrase if the young-earth view were right.  The “Day X” seems, rather, to be a marker for the preceding description of the events within the epoch, much the same way that a modern writer would write the following:

       

        Day 1— Such and such happened . . .

        Day 2— Such and such happened . . .

In the Hebrew, “Day X” markers seem to be placed at the end rather than the beginning, like this:

       

        Such and such happened . . . –Day 1

        Such and such happened . . . –Day 2

The young earth view also runs into trouble with assuming literal evening and morning, since a standard day with evening and morning requires the existence of the earth, night, day, and light.  How could Day 1 of creation have begun before God made the earth and spoke light into existence and made day and night?  Therefore, even the young earth position has to address the question of how much time elapsed between the beginning of time and when the earth was made or when light was made.  The Genesis 1 passage does not indicate how much time passed before God made the earth or light.  The Gap Theory, that says there was an indefinite amount of time between v.1 and v.2 of Genesis 1, actually makes some sense.  There is no way to quantify that time interval.  It could have been a minute or billions of years.

The Bible says that God made everything in six days (Exodus 20:11), but even the young earth position would seem to require six days plus however much time there was before the earth (or light) was made.  Considering that “evening” is the beginning of the day, we would need light to exist, unless it is talking about the day beginning in pure darkness which isn’t properly “dusk”.  If that is the case, then when light was made, you would need the light made for only the “other” side of the earth—the side where the Spirit of God was not hovering—otherwise you’d have sudden daytime, which would break the “evening and morning” cycle.  If you couldn’t follow all that, then I’m not surprised.  The young earth view becomes highly awkward to fit with the first day: (a) being 24-hours, (b) starting when the universe was first being stretched out, and (c) fitting the phrase of “evening and morning were the first day”.  I believe the better way to resolve this supposed contradiction is to realize that “day” does not mean a 24-hour period in the creation account.

The old earth view makes better sense of all the words within the phrase, “There was dusk and there was dawn; Day X.”  In the young earth view, this phrase is literally backing up in time, since “dusk” was at beginning of the day that was described.  The old earth view makes this phrase chronologically consistent with the whole passage, since it indicates the ending of the current epoch and the starting of a new epoch.  The phrase seems to mean, “The current epoch ended and a new epoch began.  This was Epoch X.”

Other Passages Giving Witness

Now, it came to my attention that 2 Corinthians 4:6, referring to Genesis 1:3, says literally, “. . . God who said, ‘Out of [ἐκ] darkness [σκότος] light shall shine.’” This is used as a picture of what happens to the unbeliever when they are saved.  This picture is best fit by the old earth view.  The light was already in existence and started penetrating through the dark cloudy atmosphere.  Similarly, the light of God, already existing, shines through the darkness of a person’s heart and lights it up when they believe.  The Greek word for “out of” (ἐκ) indicates a source from which something is coming.  The Greek word for “darkness” (σκότος) also indicates obscurity or shadiness.  So, the phrase could be interpreted as saying that light would shine from the thick darkness.  Scientifically, this is accurate, since light from the sun would get diffused in the atmosphere and then be coming from the once dark atmosphere rather than the sun.  The young earth view would turn this analogy into light appearing from nowhere in our hearts.  In fact, 2 Cor. 4:4 elaborates on the analogy like this: “. . . the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the brightness of the gospel of the glory of Christ . . . should not dawn on them.”  Therefore, the light of the gospel is shining, but for the unbelieving, they are blinded such that they cannot see the light.  It is as though there is a cloud of darkness in their hearts that prevents them from seeing the light of the glory of Christ.  This beautifully fits the old earth view of the early earth with a thick, dark cloud about it, and then the light coming to penetrate through this dark atmosphere.  But, on the other hand, perhaps it’s just a weak analogy and not everything fits.

Job 26:10 and Proverbs 8:27 also become somewhat paradoxical in the young earth view.  They are clearly talking about what scientists refer to as the terminator—the grey line or twilight zone around the circumference of earth at the edge between night and day, and between light and darkness, that forms a near perfect circle.  The words for “inscribed” (‘chug,’ חוּג) and “drew” (‘chaqaq,’ חקק) in these two passages would typically denote a process of formation through time.  Now, if light instantly appeared in space and illuminated half of the earth, as the young earth view suggests, the terminator would have been created in a single instant.  The old earth perspective, however, fits better with the idea of a circle being inscribed, since it would have taken time for the terminator to become well defined at the surface of the earth.  Yes, we could easily chalk it up to poetic language.  Job and Proverbs are poetic books, after all.

When Were Adam and Eve?

There have been a number of indications that modern, human intelligence arose somewhere around 150,000 years ago. Certain indicators of human intelligence are the ability to create fire, wear clothing, fashion and use tools, speak, read and write, build lodging, think abstractly, create music, and cook. Most evolutionists believe that there was a pattern of increasing intelligence over hundreds of thousands of years. However, the evidence is flimsy, in my personal opinion. I believe intelligence was rising, but only to a certain point and only in discrete steps determined by genetic coding. When Adam was finally given spiritual life by God, he was instantly smarter than any immediate ancestors.

Fires. Now, ability to make fires supposedly goes back much farther than 150 Ka. The problem with the evidence is that it is mostly circumstantial evidence. Finding burnt materials (or even flint) around Homo erectus or Homo sapiens is not proof of the ability to start fires. It could indicate merely that early hominids were interested in fire and collected burnt materials. The finding of “hearths” is also speculative and requires a measure of interpretation. I doubt that Homo sapiens were making fires before 100 Ka. Either way, though, using flint to make fire isn’t necessarily indicative of a high level of intelligence that would require the kind of self-awareness that we possess.

Tool making was relatively primitive up until roughly 100 Ka, also. Even apes and monkeys are able to make and use tools.^[2] Early hominids were nothing more than smart animals that could produce crude tools, yet somewhat more efficiently than apes. There is some evidence that tool making improved over time, but the improvements were mostly minor.

Clothing use has recently been dated to around 170 Ka, based on mitochondrial DNA of clothing lice.  However, the idea of using molecular clocks is a newer science that is based on a shaky assumption. It is assumed that genetic mutations occurred in the past at a relatively constant rate. On that point, see this article that shows an example of how molecular clocks can be way off: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/11/penguin-dna-may-reset-the-mole.html. Genetic mutations may have occurred “two-to-six times faster than previously estimated” for penguins. That’s what you call being way off. So, the 170 Ka date for the invention of clothing is premature—or at least highly tentative. Clothing, according to the Bible, didn’t come into being until Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve probably weren’t around until about 80-60 Ka, in my view.

Abstract Thinking. The beginnings of abstract thinking is hard to pin down. Some of the earliest evidence is found in the Blombos Cave in South Africa, and dated to around 75 Ka (as an upper limit due to the type of dating used). There are lines in stone that look decorative and would likely indicate symbolic thought. The problem with this evidence is that the marks in the stone are imprecise and could have other explanations. They could be nothing more than doodles by early pre-humans. Regardless of the interpretation, I have no problem believing that pre-humans had the ability to think more abstractly than ordinary animals, since God was preparing them to receive His image and to become fully self-aware beings. These marks in stone still indicate a relatively primitive intelligence. Also found in the cave were many perforated shells with possible wear marks. It is suggested that these shells were made into a necklace. Other explanations could be possible, but the ability of pre-humans to make a crude necklace wouldn’t shock me. It seems likely that pre-humans had the ability to think symbolically to some degree. Note, however, that the primary dating method (thermoluminescence dating) provides an upper limit rather than a precise date. This means that the artifacts in the cave probably are from a much later time, like 40 Ka, as I understand it.

Summary. As for the other indicators of advanced (modern) intelligence, the evidence for speech and lodging and cooking could easily indicate a very late date of origination. There is nothing evidentially that contradicts the idea that mankind suddenly gained a spiritual nature along with the ability to speak, create buildings, and cook sometime around 90-65 Ka. Thus, it is reasonable to place Adam and Eve around this time. (I place Adam and Eve around this time because the Out-of-Africa event likely took place around this time, and the Bible indicates Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia and not in Africa.)

Religion (Edit): I want to add a word about religion. Because of the Flood, most of human history from about 80 to 55 Ka would have been mostly erased, or at least obscured, in Mesopotamia. When looking for evidence of religious practices among Homo sapiens, there is nothing concrete until about 50 Ka, which would have been roughly around the time of the Tower of Babel when people dispersed from the Near East throughout the world. Indeed, because of this, some scholars suggest that this is about the time when humans first began having a religious nature. Some have suggested that animal worship was occurring as early as 70 Ka in Africa, but the evidence for that is in dispute among scholars. The only solid evidence of religious practices is from after 50 Ka, which fits with the idea that true humans began c. 70 Ka and Noah's Flood happened c. 55 Ka and the Tower of Babel happened c. 52 Ka. True humans have always had a religious nature. So, though religious practices do go back to about ~70 Ka, in my theories, the evidence is wanting because of the Flood and the limited geographical range of humans before the Flood.

Music (Edit). As for music, the earliest concrete evidence of musical skill are Paleolithic bone flutes^[1] that date to about 40 Ka, as I understand it. This is also not too long after the Tower of Babel. Because evidence was destroyed in the Flood, it is not surprising that there is no evidence of musical instruments before 50 Ka.

References
[1] http://www.livescience.com/20563-ancient-bone-flute.html
[2] http://phys.org/news/2016-10-monkeys-stone-flakes-humans-unique.html [Edit: Link added 10/29/2016]

BCOE: Creation of the Universe and Early Earth

Please read all of these Bible passages before we get into Genesis 1:1-2.  The letters in brackets are referenced later.

1)  In the beginning, God created [“bara,” בּרא] the heavens [universe] [a] and the earth [d-j]. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep [waters] [j].  –Genesis 1:1-2

2) Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens [universe] [a] and stretched them out [b], who spread out [pounded down] the earth [d] and what comes from it . . .  –Isaiah 42:5

3) Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens [universe] [a-b], who spread out [pounded down] the earth [d] by Myself . . . –Isaiah 44:24

4)  . . . the LORD, your Maker, who stretched out the heavens [b] and laid the foundations of the earth [e] . . . –Isaiah 51:13

5)  The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens [a-b] and founded [laid the foundation of] the earth [e] . . . –Zech. 12:1

6)  When there were no depths I [Wisdom] was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water [j]. Before the mountains had been shaped [k], before the hills [k], I was brought forth, before He had made the earth [e-f] with its fields [“chuts,” וחוצות, meaning “outside”], or the first of the dust of the world [d]. When He established the heavens [a], I was there . . . –Proverbs 8:24-27a

7)  You are the LORD, You alone. You have made heaven [universe] [a], the heaven of heavens [farthest parts of the universe] [b], with all their host [stars, etc.] [c], the earth [d-f] and all that is on it, the seas [h-j] and all that is in them; and You preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships You.  –Nehemiah 9:6

8)  It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the earth . . . who stretches out the heavens [universe] like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.  –Isaiah 40:22

9) He stretched out the north over the empty place [b]; and He hung the earth on nothing [d-f].  –Job 26:7

10) He set the earth on its foundations [e], so that it should never be moved. You covered it with the deep [waters] as with a garment [j]; the waters stood above the mountains [or hills] [j]. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them [k].  –Psalm 104:5-8

11)  Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth [e]?  . . . Or who shut in the sea with doors [g] when it burst out from the womb [h], when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band [i] . . . –Job 38:4a, 8-9

Creation Order of Events

From all these verses we get the following picture of the formation of the universe and earth:

            a) The universe is created from nothing and appears

            b) It is stretched out for everything to “dwell in”

            c) The hosts of heaven are made

            d) Primal dust of earth gets compacted down

            e) The foundation is laid down

            f) The primitive earth is completed without the seas

            g) The seas are shut in

            h) The sea waters burst out

            i) The atmosphere becomes thick and dark

            j) The sea waters cover over the mountains/hills

            k) Hills and mountains are made. 

Clearly, there was a lot going on in Genesis 1:1-2.  Genesis 1 is not a complete picture of the Creation.  That is the first thing to note.  The creation of the heavens and earth were complex.

Let’s see for a moment how that this order is really justified from the passages.  First, from many of these passages, it is clear because of the consistency that the heavens were made (a) before the earth (f) (passages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9).  The stretching out of the universe (b) seemed to have been required for things to exist within it (c-k) per Isaiah 40:22 (8), though it indicates a continual stretching out of the heavens.  Just as a tent is put up for people to live in it, the universe was expanded for things to exist within it.  Other passages referring to the expansion of the universe before the earth was made are passages 3 and 5.  Nehemiah 9:6 (7) puts the formation of the hosts of heaven (c) directly after the formation of the universe (a), and then the earth is formed (d-e).  The foundations of the earth are laid down by some process (e) and then the water covers over it (j), according to Neh. 9:6 (7), Psalm 104:5-6 (10), and Job 38:4-9 (11).  According to Job 38:8-9 (11), the seas burst out (h) and thick clouds were made that created darkness (i).  According to Psalm 104 (10), the mountains (k) were created after the seas (j).  This completes the entire order of events. 

So, to summarize:

            (a) comes first by intuition

            (b) comes after (a) by intuition, and before (c) by (7), (8)

            (c) comes before (d) by (7)

            (d) comes before (e) by (6)

            (e) comes before (f) by intuition and by (11)

            (f) comes before (g) by (11)

            (g) comes before (h) by (11)

            (h) comes before (i) by intuition and by (11)

            (i) roughly at the same time as (j) by (1), (11)

            (j) comes before (k) by (10).

The order is entirely consistent with these exceptions: passages 6 and 8.  Both of these, I believe, are easily explained.  Isaiah 40:22 (8) starts by saying that God sits above the circle of the earth.  This isn’t a reference to the past creation, but a reference to the current state of things.  The following part of the verse makes reference to the stretching of the universe for things to dwell in it, and seems to be indicating that the universe is still being stretched out.  Passage 6 has the following form: “When X . . . when Y . . . Before A, before B, before C, or D.  When E, I was there.”  The most logical way to interpret something like that is events X and Y are not sequential with events A through E.  And, you would expect that A – E would be going back in time, not forward.  You would say, for example, “Before I woke up, and before I went to bed, I had a headache,” and not, “Before I went to bed, and before I woke up, I had a headache.”  The order is reversed in such a sentence.  And, indeed, the events A – E of passage 6 (Prov. 8:24-27) are in reverse order compared with the other passages: formation of mountains and formation of hills ((k) above), formation of earth with its “outside” (e), the beginning of the primal dust of the earth (d), and the creation of the heavens (a-c).  We may want to examine the Hebrew word “outside” sometime, but for now let is suffice that the order is quite nicely in reverse.

As you can see, all of these passages give a consistent message about the order of events, and there is no reason to doubt that there was a specific order of events that happened in the process of time.  The only passage that violates the order is passage 6, and we have noted why that is the case.

Now, keep in mind that it would generally be reasonable to list events in chronological order going either forward or backward in time.  For example, “On Wednesday, I went to the park; on Tuesday, I went to the ballgame; and on Monday, I stayed home.”  Even though this order is going back in time, it is still a reasonable order.  There are a few other passages referencing the creation of the heavens and earth that list things in reverse order; however, these passages are fewer—as one would expect—than those listing things in a forward-in-time order.  Such passages are Psalm 102:25, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Jer. 10:12, Jer. 51:15, where the earth’s creation is mentioned before the creation of the heavens.  These passages are clearly in the reversed order, since Genesis 1 is chronologically moving forward in time.

We’ll see shortly that this order of creation of things listed above fits with generally received science, which is a spectacular testimony of the accuracy and validity of the Bible!  We should not defraud Creation of its deserved testimony to God’s work and Word.  The young earth view has little use for these descriptions of the formation of the universe and earth, and cannot adequately account for how these biblical passages so beautifully fit with mainstream science.  They often try to explain these passages away and awkwardly ascribe some of it to the Flood, such as Psalm 104.

Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 says that God created (“bara,” בּרא) the universe.  This word for create, “bara” in Hebrew, normally refers to making something from scratch or perhaps out of nothing.  This was a miracle.  The laws of nature at the very least were created from nothing—from God’s very mind.

Next, Genesis 1:1 says that the earth was created.  However, we see from all the passages above, that the universe had to be “stretched out” like a tent for everything to be made within it (Is. 40:22).  So, apparently some time elapsed between making the universe and making the earth.  In any case, a stretching of something requires some amount of time.  This is entirely consistent with mainstream science: the Big Bang, the known expansion of the universe, and then the eventual formation of earth.  Science attests to this order.  It also attests to the fact that the universe (the heavens) are still being stretched out as verses indicate.

The actual making of earth wasn’t instantaneous either, we see from the other passages.  The foundation got laid down and then the seas were formed from water within the earth.  Later, the land and mountains got formed, which we’ll discuss later pertaining to Day 3 of creation.  There is reference to “primal dust” of the earth (Prov. 8:26), and of the earth being “beaten down” [“raqa,” רקע] (Is. 44:24).  This “raqa” has the meaning of to overlay with layers and hammer down.  It’s the term that would perhaps be used of a blacksmith who was creating something and hammering it and putting a layer over other layers to finish it.  So, the entire picture that seems to be presented is of the earth being formed from primal dust and compacted down and overlaid with new layers until the foundations were completed; then, the seas came out of the earth and covered over the foundations and created a dark, watery and cloudy atmosphere (Job 38:8-9).

According to the Bible itself, Genesis 1:1 has a much simplified view of all of this creation of the universe and earth.  However, again, established science is consistent with the above view of the formation of the earth!  Let that sink in a little bit.  This view of what happened during the formation of the earth sounds almost like a textbook view of it.  A textbook would probably present it more technically like this, in summary: the earth formed from primitive stardust (Prov. 8:26) as small planetoids coalesced and got compacted together with new layers of earth forming through time (Is. 44:24); finally, early on in earth’s history, much of the oceans’ water came from within the earth as water bubbled up and came out as steam (Job 38:8) and surrounded the earth, forming a thick blanket of steamy atmosphere that then started to condense down to cover over the earth’s crust and form a global ocean (Job 38:9).

For a young earth creationist, there is a question as to what the “heavens” entail if it does not include the sun and stars.  The earth is listed separately, so the earth cannot be considered a part of the “heavens” in v.1.  What was created?  Yes, it could be said that it was the “vacuum of space” that was created, but I find that an unlikely interpretation.

Genesis 1:2

Next, Genesis 1:2 says that the earth was—or “had come to be” (“hayah,” היה)—without form (“tohu,” תּהוּ) and void (“bohu,” בּהוּ).  According to Genesis 1:2, the earth now had waters covering it.  The idea of these two words is that the earth was vacant, without life, without solid ground, empty, and a wasteland.  From the other verses listed, we see that the sea waters took time to be created.  Genesis 1:2 is after the seas had formed from water within the earth and after thick clouds had covered the earth creating thick darkness, according to Job 38:8.  Does “thick darkness” from Job 38:8 sound familiar?  Genesis 1:2 says that after the waters on the earth had formed there was “darkness . . . upon the face of the deep.”

Why was there darkness?  According to Job 38:8, the darkness was due to a thick, watery atmosphere!  Notice carefully, Genesis 1:2 says that the perspective to be used is from the surface of the waters.  Darkness covered the surface.  It is not necessarily saying that darkness was throughout the universe, but from the surface of earth.  This is consistent with Job 38:8.  Please compare these Scriptures and see if I’m right.  Why does Genesis 1:2 talk about darkness covering the face of the deep, if the darkness was everywhere?  I present to you that Scripture interprets itself, and the darkness was only from the perspective of the surface as Job 38:8 indicates.

Interestingly, there are only two other places where the Hebrew words “tohu” and “bohu” are found together, and one of these two places is Jeremiah 4:23, which says, “I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.”  This clearly harkens back to Genesis 1:2.  In Jeremiah 4:23, as most commentaries will agree, the description is in regard to Israel after its judgment and destruction.  The idea appears to be that the land would be ruined, the inhabitants removed, and the place burned causing smoke to obscure the sun, moon, and stars.  The “heavens . . . had no light,” but clearly this isn’t saying that the sun, moon, and stars would be destroyed!  No, rather, the meaning would seem to be that from the perspective of the surface of the earth in Israel, the heavenly lights would be covered and not visible.  Applying this language to Genesis 1:2, we can definitely see the interpretation mentioned above fitting, I believe.

Another passage that supports this interpretation of Genesis 1:2, is Ezekiel 32:7-8, “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the Lord GOD.”  Does this not sound similar to Genesis 1:2?  The “darkness” upon the land was because of “a cloud” covering the sun and moon.  Notice also the relative statement that the “moon shall not give its light.”  This wasn’t scientifically precise, but only a relative statement true from one perspective—from the surface of the earth.

Science, again, can easily be reconciled with this sound interpretation of Genesis 1:2; though, science is still not able to tell us what happened precisely during the early years of the earth.  Established science will tell you that the early atmosphere of earth was much thicker.  The idea of there being darkness is entirely reasonable with science.  Early on, the steamy atmosphere would be dense and dark, more than likely.

BCOE: Genesis 1 Overview

Before getting into the nitty-gritty analysis of each verse, let me briefly make some observations about the whole chapter, the book of Genesis, and the Bible at large. 

The Bible was never intended to be a textbook for us.  It contains entirely true historical and scientific information, but the primary purpose isn’t to inform us of all the nature of the universe.  It’s to inform us of who God is.  It’s to show us His heart, His will, His plans, His salvation, His relationship to us, and His view of all things.  It’s all about Him.  It’s not primarily about educating us about the world.  We can learn much about the world, but that’s not the primary thrust.

Whether the universe is billions of years old or merely thousands should not change the theological implications of Genesis—who God is and how He relates to His world.  God is still the same, and man is still the same.  We will address the doctrine of sin and the Fall later, since those doctrines seem to be brought into question when animal death was around before Adam and Eve.  However, as we will hopefully see, the issue of animal violence and death is separate from human sin and death.  Also, the issue of animal death before Adam and Eve is not directly related to the age of the universe, but is more related to how the fossil record is interpreted.

It should be noted that Genesis does contain some minor poetic and non-literal language.  I’m not suggesting that Genesis 1 should be taken mostly poetically or non-literally; as you will see, I take Genesis 1 mostly literally.  However, poetic language isn’t entirely foreign in Genesis.  Examples are prophetic references as in Genesis 3 and Genesis 49 filled with poetic language, the promise to Abraham that his descendents would be like “the sand” and stars in numbers (the number of stars and grains of sand are both vastly more than the number of humans who’ve ever lived), and Genesis 11 that says that “nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.”  These are examples of hyperbole—statements not to be taken literally.

Another important point is that Genesis 1 has both absolute statements and relative statements.  The relative statements are in relation to “points of reference,” or the perspective from which things are written.  Just like we say that the “sun rises and sets,” the Bible commonly uses such relative statements.  They are true from the perspective of the ground of earth, but would be untrue from outer space.  Genesis 1 speaks both absolutely and relatively.  We will carefully note when the language becomes relative to perspective.  Fortunately, the perspective is clearly declared in Genesis 1.

The Hebrew word “hayah” (היה) which often means “became” or “to come to pass” occurs 17 times in Genesis 1, which is more than five times more than the average per chapter in the Old Testament (the average is 3.3 times per chapter).  This word often denotes the passage of time. 

The Genesis 1 account is referred to as the “the generations of the heavens and the earth. . .” (Gen. 2:4a).  In light of that definition, each creation day (“yom,” יום) could perhaps be considered a “generation”.  Also, in the same context, it says, “. . . in the day [yom] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens” (Gen. 2:4b).  Multiple days of creation appear to be called a single “day,” which is a relatively clear reference to day being used for a longer period than 24-hours.

BCOE: Science and the Bible

Note: I'm starting a new series of blog posts on the "Biblical Case for an Old Earth" (abbreviated as BCOE).  I will lay out the basic reasons why an old earth is consistent with the Bible.  Dr. Hugh Ross does a much better job of this in his book A Matter of Days, but hopefully my version is more concise and covers a few distinct ideas.

We probably wouldn’t be interested in this topic until we had modern technology and science.  Science is the impetus behind the idea of an old earth.  So, the question becomes, should we allow ourselves to be influenced by science?  Shouldn’t we just accept whatever the Bible says without questioning it and interpret science in light of the Bible as opposed to the other way around?  These are serious and reasonable questions.

In my search for the truth, I was struggling with this very issue.  It occurred to me that either the Bible was wrong (unthinkable!) or science was wrong.  The problem is that “nature” is God’s work.  Science is merely the investigation of nature.  We could obviously assume, as it is right to do, that interpretations of nature are not always correct.  Ah, but therein lies the secret of everything!  Nature needs to be interpreted.  There is evidence that needs to be weighed.  Evidence can be overwhelming or only a hint of something.

My first belief was that it is not wrong to analyze the evidence in nature.  I doubt anyone would seriously question that belief.  Nature is God’s work and a witness to the world.  If it were wrong to examine nature, then we’d need to come up with an adequate answer as to why it is wrong.

My second belief was that if some evidence in nature is overwhelming, then if there is room to reinterpret Scripture without doing damage to it, such to have Scripture be harmonized with the overwhelming evidence, we should carefully do so.  Now, I’m sure there are people who would disagree with this point, so I’ll take a moment to explain why I would believe it.

First, we must understand the nature of Nature.  The Bible tells us that nature was given as a witness—something to be looked at and considered and from which to draw conclusions about the nature of God (Romans 1; Psalm 19).  That is, nature can even be useful in showing us the rudimentaries of theology!  If it speaks to a small degree about God, then surely it speaks volumes about itself.  I think it is evident from the Bible that the creation is a faithful and true witness.  We must assume, then, that creation isn’t deceptive or out to confuse us.  It is God’s natural testimony to man, and can be trusted as long as we carefully interpret the evidence.  The natural world speaks volumes about itself and its history.  This too can be trusted.  What am I saying?  I’m saying that the evidence in nature wasn’t created to confuse us and distract us from the Bible, but rather it was given to point people directly to the Bible.  Do you think of nature that way?  If you don’t, then you are rejecting the general revelation of God.  You are essentially assuming that God might set up mounds of evidence just to tempt people to reject the Bible and Him.  Such a god is disturbing to me and should be to you.

Second, everything is interpreted.  The Bible is interpreted and nature is interpreted.  It’s true that the Bible is generally much clearer and direct and needs less interpretation.  However, let’s not miss the basic point.  The Bible is often open to interpretation.  Many passages are interpreted two or more different ways by different godly people.  There is only one correct interpretation of a passage, however.  Now, I’d ask you, what if you found that the evidence in nature was overwhelming for some conclusion—that is, that the interpretation of the evidence was clear to you—and you saw two different interpretations of a passage in the Bible, both reasonable, but one interpretation was in contradiction to the conclusion drawn from nature?  Which Bible interpretation would you go with?  Would you not be sensible and reasonable to concluded that the Bible should be interpreted consistently with what you saw clearly shown in nature?  Now, notice what I’m not saying.  I’m not saying that an interpretation of the Bible should ever be forced upon the Bible due to some evidence from nature, no matter how strong it seems.  All interpretations of the Bible need to be reasonable and respectful of His Word.  However, again, I remind the reader that nature is also a kind of word from God.  It would not be right to reject overwhelming evidence in nature for a slightly more preferred interpretation of a passage of the Bible.  The Bible and nature will never contradict when they are both properly interpreted, for they are both God’s work.

So, in context of this paper, we must carefully examine Genesis 1 to see if an old earth interpretation is reasonable.  We must also examine the body of evidence in nature to see if the evidence is overwhelming or highly subjective.

Third, God’s nature is one of Truth.  This is crucial to believe.  God is not a deceiver.  That is Satan’s title.  This universe was entirely designed and created by God.  If we have to say of the evidence in nature, “Oh, it just looks that way, but there is a complex reason why it really isn’t that way,” then we are unintentionally ascribing deception to God.  We have to ask ourselves, does nature point to God?  Did God make nature in such a way that when scientists study it they are more and more convinced that the universe is ancient, even though it is really young?  These are questions that need to be carefully answered.

Fourth, the Bible teaches that every “charge” must be established by two or three witnesses (2 Cor. 13:1; Deut. 19:15).  If there are countless evidences for an old earth—and we shall see many later—and there are no clear examples of evidence for a young earth, then we find that creation is attesting to its age with many witnesses that cannot easily be disregarded.  I have heard many young earth creationist claim that there is “the appearance of age” throughout nature.  Even they are forced to admit the evidence seems to favor an old earth, unless you do try to reason your way around the evidence.  They are basically suggesting that the witnesses of creation are wrong.  They are claiming that we should favor the few small witnesses whispering “the earth is young” over the multitude of witnesses shouting that “the earth is old”.  Why?  Because the Bible seems to say that the universe is young.  They pit the Special Revelation of God against the General Revelation of God.  This is an improper way to handle God’s revelation.

Fifth, we certainly must not distort the Scriptures in favor of any supposed evidence in nature.  Let me say that another way: the Bible is always right and true when properly interpreted, even if other evidence seems to contradict it.  We can easily bend Scriptures to a breaking point.  I want to be clear in saying that I do not want to do that, nor do I want you to do that.  Now, on the other hand, there is usually some flexibility in how we interpret Scripture.  What follows is mostly an analysis of the Bible to see if the Bible can be reasonably and fairly interpreted to accommodate an old earth rather than a young earth.  If I “break” the Bible, then by all means reject this paper.

I’d challenge you to consider this point seriously, however: if there is a literal translation and interpretation of the creation passages—Genesis 1 in particular—that coincides with the mainstream view of the history of the universe and the earth, is that not noteworthy and seemingly beyond mere coincidence?  It really doesn’t matter what might be considered many to be the most likely interpretation of Genesis 1 when science is out of the picture.  Even if it is possible to literally translate the creation passages in such a way that it is consistent with the basic record in nature, it is worthy of consideration because of the shear improbability of it.  Perhaps like me, you will come to understand that studying Creation itself can be helpful in rightly interpreting a passage that is speaking about the history of Creation.  All I ask you to do is consider that concept as you read this article, and to try to put away your natural prejudices to a young earth.  If you are anything like me, these prejudices run deep.

Why Many Orthodox Christians Shun Evolution

Evolution of any kind is considered nearly anathema (Greek for "accursed") to traditional, evangelical Christians. Some Christian leaders have even questioned the spiritual state of those professed Christians who embrace evolution. Some perhaps would go so far as to say that belief in evolution is eternally damning. Damning? Really? What is it about evolution that is so distasteful to traditional Christians? What are the theological implications that make evolution a dreaded opponent of the gospel?

Naturalistic evolution—evolution that sidelines God and makes all life a product of random processes—does have severe theological implications when taken to its natural conclusions. These theological implications are what are dreaded by orthodox Christians. When you sideline God and propose that humans evolved from apes and allegorize the first chapters of Genesis, you invariably (intentionally or unintentionally) paint man as a more innocent product of his environment whose sin-nature was thrust upon him without his choosing. This picture flies quite clearly in the face of Romans 5 where Paul argues that human sinfulness and death were the consequence of Adam's choice to rebel against God. Death is argued to be the direct result of Adam’s sin. Theistic evolutionists have to perform mind-bending, hermeneutical gymnastics to reinterpret this Romans passage and others to fit their belief about sin and death. The theological ramifications of all this are that sin is no longer exceedingly sinful, man is no longer fully culpable, human death was unavoidable, and man is essentially an advanced animal. None of these square with the traditional, orthodox understanding of death and the human condition. (We must, however, pause and note that not all theistic evolutionists will draw these dangerous conclusions.)

When an informed Christian thinks of evolution, they typically think of all of these things immediately. Thus, the aversion to evolution is understandable, since basic theistic evolution can lead to these huge distortions of the biblical message. It is certainly important to defend the message of the gravity of mankind's sinfulness and his willful rebellion that resulted in death passing upon all men.

Even so, evolution does not logically need to lead to any of these theological distortions. If evolution were created and designed by God, and Adam and Eve were supernaturally given spirits, the ability to have a perfect relationship with God, and a Tree of Life to live forever, then all these distortions melt away. When Adam sinned, it did ruin him and all his future descendants. His sin did plunge him into a fallen state. He was more than a mere animal. He was created in God's image in that he had a spiritual nature. God is spirit, the Bible says. Adam's sin did result in death, since he was subsequently kept from the Tree of Life as judgment.

Man's lost and fallen condition does not need to be viewed any differently whether his physical body design was made instantly from the ground or whether it was made through a long process of designed evolution. Man's body is amoral. It is mankind's spiritual nature that is fallen and at enmity with God. Our physical bodies are slaves to our immaterial spirits and souls. Therefore, logically, the physical condition of mankind did not need to change at the fall of Adam and Eve, but only their spiritual condition. Orthodoxy does not disagree with this basic belief: it was not a physical change in Adam and Eve that resulted in the sinful nature of humanity. It is then not theologically damaging to say that Adam and Eve's physical attributes were no different before and after the Fall. All that is important theologically is to understand the spiritual change that happened with Adam and Eve when they first sinned. As for death, it clearly says in Genesis 3 that God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden to keep them from living forever (vv. 22-23)—i.e. so that they would die. Death wasn't because of a supernatural curse upon the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, then, but because they were no longer allowed to eat of the life-sustaining Tree of Life.

Also, when evolution is viewed as being designed, along with every kind of animal, God is again seen as Creator of the complexity and beauty we see in creation. His glory in nowise is dimensioned, since all things were intentionally, fully planned by Him. The initial life on earth was given the precise genetic code, designed by God, to result in the particular life forms that God wanted on earth. God's sovereignty, intelligence, wisdom, and perfect planning are all exulted in this view of evolution.

So, reasonably, I see no theological distastefulness or danger of a non-naturalistic form of evolution, where God is the Designer and where man's spirit wasn't the product of evolution. Unfortunately, even if this view is correct, I highly doubt it will catch on, since it appears too close to a humanistic, godless evolution for comfort. It appears very similar, but the differences are enormous when you believe that Adam's spirit was supernaturally created, because the ramifications are starkly different than when you view man's spirit as the product of evolution. Genesis should not be viewed as allegorical, and it does not need to be in this view of evolution.

Evolution could not work without a Creator, and "sin" would not be sin without a literal Adam falling from spiritual perfection. The Bible does not leave room for naturalistic evolution, I believe, but a created evolution is fully compatible with the Bible.

Bible Unapologetically Says the Heavens and Earth are Old

Unlike what most people think, the Bible does not directly teach that the earth, moon, sun, or stars are young. It nowhere says that they are young. In fact, it teaches just the opposite. Here are some verses that teach that the earth, moon, and stars are old (all from the NKJV):

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old... -2 Peter 3:5

To Him who rides on the heaven of heavens, which were of old! -Psalm 68:33

Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. -Psalm 102:25

With the best things of the ancient mountains, With the precious things of the everlasting hills... -Deut. 33:15

"Did you not hear long ago How I made it [various parts of the landscape], From ancient times that I formed it?" -2 Kings 19:25a

"The blessings of your father Have excelled the blessings of my ancestors, Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills." -Genesis 49:26a

He stood and measured the earth; He looked and startled the nations. And the everlasting mountains were scattered, The perpetual hills bowed. His ways are everlasting. -Habakkuk 3:6

His name shall endure forever; His name shall continue as long as the sun. And men shall be blessed in Him; All nations shall call Him blessed. -Psalm 72:17

His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me... -Psalm 89:36

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. -Psalm 90:2

Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I [Wisdom] was brought forth... -Proverbs 8:25

Now, it's true that "ancient" is a relative term. It is applied to events or people who were not millions of years ago. These verses do not prove the oldness of the universe, but they are more than compatible with the idea of the universe being extremely old. If God had wanted to, He could have in one place said that the heavens or earth were recently made or not any older than humanity, but He did not. The Bible teaches only that the heavens and earth are "everlasting" or "ancient". I find this good evidence for the antiquity of the universe.

The above verses indicate that the hills, mountains, foundations of earth, heavens, and the sun are all old. According to current mainstream understanding of the formation of the universe and earth, all of these things are millions or billions of years old -- with the exception of some hills. Even so, most larger hills are likely still older than 1 million years old, and certainly some of them are several million years old. No matter how you look at it, these things mentioned are really old in relation to humanity, and I think that is the point.