The Six Days and the Age of the Earth

Have you ever felt like you entered the rabbit hole of no return? If you start reading the literature on Genesis 1, you will. Nearly every line in Genesis 1 is the subject of intense debate.

In this post I will focus on two interrelated debates among Christians regarding Genesis 1: the proper interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 and the age of the earth.

When confronted with a challenging and complex topic, I find it helpful to start by making a list of things I know—or at least think I know—about the topic. Since science is not my cup of tea, my list mainly focuses on the biblical side of this controversy. Also, while each side offers rebuttals to points made below, I’m only going to allow each side to speak once. I don’t want to go back into the rabbit hole—there are too many words down there. Here’s what I think I know, starting with what I believe is the proper framework for this debate.

I.    According to Paul, the most important thing he taught was Christ’s death for our sins, his burial, his resurrection on the third day, and his resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:3-8).

II.   An explicit statement on the age of the earth and the proper interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 is not found in the Bible.

III.  While Genesis 1 received much attention by the early church fathers who lived prior to AD 325, none of them explicitly endorsed the 24-hour-day interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 (Ross, Navigating Genesis).

IV.  None of the major historic Christian creeds mention the age of the earth nor specify the correct interpretation of the days in Genesis 1.

V.   Most modern-day statements of faith do not mention the age of the earth nor specify the correct interpretation of the days in Genesis 1.

VI.   The debate between young earth and old earth advocates has been one of the most contentious issues in modern-day Christianity in the U.S.

VII.  For some the Bible clearly teaches that God created the earth in six 24-hour days. For these believers to hold to a different view would be to compromise the clear teaching of Scripture for the sake of current popular opinion. Since God’s work of creation only took one week rather than millions of years, this view is closely connected to a young earth interpretation—Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The following arguments are used to support this view:

• The Hebrew term used for day in Genesis 1 is the typical term used in the Hebrew Bible for a 24-hour period.
• The account of each of the six days concludes with the refrain, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the ___ day” causing us to think of a typical 24-hour period.
• Exodus 20:11 states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day” (cf. Ex. 31:17). That statement is used as support for Israel to have a literal 24-hour period of rest once a week: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.”

VIII.   For others, including the majority of scientists, there are multiple lines of scientific evidence which all point to one conclusion: the universe is about 14 billion years old and Earth is about 4 billion years old. In support of the idea that the days of creation are not literal 24-hour days, but longer periods of time, consider the following points: 

• The Hebrew term for day is used for a wide range of time periods: some of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, a 24-hour period, a long but finite time period (Ross, Navigating Genesis).
• The seventh day is not a literal, 24-hour day which opens the door to viewing the first six days as non-literal. First, there is no “evening and morning” refrain at the end of the seventh day (Gen. 2:1-3). Second, Hebrews 4:1-11 refers to God’s Sabbath-rest as something we can enter into thus indicating it’s on-going nature.
• Genesis 2:4 says, “These are 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” (ESV). Notice the singular “day” in this statement. Instead of viewing God’s acts of creation as occurring over a literal six-day period, this detail led Augustine to view God’s acts of creation described in Genesis 1 as occurring instantaneously.
• The sun was not created until day 4 so days 1-3 could not have been literal 24-hour solar days.
• The chronology of the creation of plant life and human life varies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, therefore we should not take the days of Genesis 1 literally. In Genesis 1, plants and trees first appeared on day 3, while humans were created on day 6 (Gen. 1:11-13, 26-30). However, in Genesis 2, humans were created before shrubs or plants appeared (vv. 5-7).
• In Psalm 90, Moses wrote, “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” (v. 4, NIV; cf. 2 Pet. 3:8). According to that statement, God experiences time differently than we do. The days in Genesis 1, especially days 1-3 without the sun, are best viewed as God’s days, not human days.
  

IX. It’s possible to believe in six literal days of creation and an old earth. For example, some believe there is a huge gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

X. Church leaders are not immune to misinterpreting the Bible and scientific data.

• While the Catholic Church did not initially reject Copernicus’s heliocentric model when it was proposed in 1543 in his work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, by 1616 the Catholic authorities “suspended” the works of Copernicus “until corrected.” The reason given was that Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal was being defended by a Carmelite father and the authorities didn’t want that proposal to spread any further.
• John Calvin’s interpretation of relevant biblical passages show his support of geocentrism.
• The heliocentric model is now universally accepted by Catholic and Protestant Church authorities.

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. My latest book focuses on Paul’s work as a tentmaker and what it means for today.