In his book Creation and Time, Hugh Ross includes a chapter titled, Biblical Basis for Long Creation Days. I would like to briefly respond to the several points he makes in support of long creation days. 1. The length of God s days. The same author of Genesis (Moses) wrote in Psalm 90:4, For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch [for hours] in the night. Moses seems to state that just as God s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:9), God s days are not our days. (45) The implication is that the idea of day does not indicate a literal 24 hour period. However, rather than mitigate against the short day view, this passage actually strengthens the idea that Moses understood day to indicate a short rather than a long period. The point of the simile is that a thousand years are to God as a very short period of time. If the word day in this context meant long period of time, then the simile has lost its meaning. What it would mean, then, would be that, to God, a thousand years is a long period of time. But that s exactly what it is to us. But Moses is trying to contrast the relation of time to us and to God. What Moses is saying is that, to God, a thousand years is as a short period of time. This is strengthened by the fact that he even compares it to a specific short period, the watch, which Ross points out is four hours. If we should conclude that the word day in this context does not mean a short period of time, should we not also conclude that a watch indicates a long period of time? But this is clearly not what the use indicates here. 2. The Hebrew words yo m, ereb, and boqer. The Hebrew word yo m, translated day, may be used (and is) in biblical Hebrew, as it is in modern English, to indicate any of three time periods: (a) sunrise to sunset, (b) sunset to sunset, (c) a segment of time without any reference to solar days (anywhere from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch). This does not mean, however, that yo m can be interpreted as referring to an indefinite time or infinite time. Of course there is no question whether the word can be so used. The question is, how is it being used in the creation narrative. The standard young-earth response is that the word always indicates a twenty-four hour day when attached to an ordinal (second, third, fourth). Ross response is that in Hosea 6:2 we find the statement, after two days he [God] will revive us [Israel]; on the third day he will restore us. Since he understands this to be an instance in which an ordinal is used with the word day to indicate a period not equivalent to a twenty-four hour period, he takes this to be a counter example to the young-earthers claims. First of all, it is his interpretation on the basis of which he understands this not to be a reference to literal twenty-four hour periods. Simply because commentators generally interpret this figuratively does not settle the question. Perhaps it does mean literal days. It may be that this prophetic pronouncement is a reference to the resurrection. After the second day God will revive us in the revived Messiah, and on the third day God will restore us in the restored Messiah. So, it may be that this is a prophetic reference to the literal days of the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. Simply because Ross interprets these references figuratively does not necessarily mean they are figurative. Consequently, these passages are just as problematic for Ross as the passages he is trying to use them to clear up.
Moreover, it seems to be hermeneutically suspect to demand that the narrative passages in Genesis 1 ought to be understood in light of a poetic usage by a prophet who is writing several hundred years later. Could Moses audience have been expected to anticipate the use of Hosea? But, even if Moses audience did understand this kind of usage, it is a dubious practice to take the figurative expressions in poetry to inform the literal passages of narrative. The figurative is built on the literal, not the literal on the figurative. We should not use the figurative expressions of poetry, assuming they are figurative, to tell us what the literal passages must mean. Poetry is predisposed toward figurative expression, while narrative passages are predisposed toward literal usage. Secondly, the metaphor of the poetic passage counts on the understanding of day as a short period of time in order to be significant. If the word day in Hosea indicated a long period of time then the force of the metaphor is lost. The reason this statement is an encouragement is because it promises that deliverance and redemption will come shortly, as if in only a day. If the word is understood to indicate a long period of time then the encouragement is lost: After two long periods of time God will revive Israel; on the third long period of time he will restore us. It makes better sense in the context to indicate, After two short periods of time [even as short as a single day] He will revive us; on the third short period of time he will restore us. Thirdly, Ross argument against the possibility of the use of olam instead of yo m does not follow. The lexicons cannot tell that a word could not have had a particular meaning at given point. All they can tell is when a word is used in a certain way. Simply because there is no record of the word being used a certain way does not mean that it could not have been so used. All the lexicon can do is say that these are the instances in which it was used in a certain way. For all they know, it may certainly have had the meaning a long age or epoch but was just not so used. Consequently, Ross argument that it could not have been used a certain way in Genesis because it was not used that way simply does not follow. Ross dogmatically states, But the range of its usage did not include a set period of time. How can he possibly know that it did not include this possible meaning. All we can know is that it wasn t used that way, although it may be the case that it could have been used that way. Finally, there is a particular problem with the inconsistent understanding of the word day in this context. In verse 5 the text states, hl;yòl; ar;q; Jv,jol'wÒ /y r/al; yhil aô ar;q]yiw" (And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night). If one argues that the word /y must mean a long period of time, then the word hl;yòl; (night) must also mean a long period of time also. Consequently, we not only have six long periods called days, but we have six additional long periods called nights. However, if one argues that the words have their usual meaning in this sentence, then what hermeneutical principle is being employed to shift from literal to figurative meaning in the same sentence? Either one must assert that the words, used figuratively, indicate a long time of light, and a succeeding long time of darkness, or else one must entertain an arbitrary and groundless shifting back and forth between figurative and literal meanings. 3. The function of a chronology. A study of other chronologies in the Bible reveals a common characteristic: They record sequences that are both significant and discernable to the reader.... For the creation days, long time periods during which increasingly complex life-forms were created, indeed, are verifiable and essential to validate the supernatural accuracy of the writer s statements. But if all creation were completed in six twenty-fourhour days, the most sophisticated measuring techniques available, or even foreseeably
available, would be totally incapable of discerning the sequence of events. Thus a major use of the chronology would be thwarted. I don t know what this argument has to do with the question. It assumes that biblical chronology has the function he thinks it has (a dubious function at best). It assumes that modern empirical science must be able to discover or verify temporal chronology or the chronology is thwarted. What did people in the Medieval ages do without the devices we have. It assumes that since he cannot foresee available techniques that they will never be available. I m sure St. Thomas could not foresee the laptop computer. I do not believe the biblical authors wrote their material with the assumption that it would be necessary to employ extra biblical techniques to verify chronology. Additionally, according to Ross understanding of the function of chronology to validate the message of God s spokesman, this function is only significant with reference to prophetic passages, not narrative passages. The reference to Act 6 mitigates against his claims. As narrative, the order is apparently not chronological. (He also assumes that because he does not discern an order in the record in Acts 6 that there must not be one.) Since the creation account is also narrative, it fits much better with the pattern of Acts 6 than with the prophetic passages. However, Ross whole point is confused, and his understanding of the function of chronology is questionable at best. 4. The unusual syntax of the sentences enumerating specific creation days. Looking a the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one finds this phraseology: and was evening and was morning day X. The New International Version phrases the time markers this way: And there was evening, and there was morning the Xth day. The word arrangement is clearly a departure from simple ordinary expression. It creates ambiguity. If day X were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form (as the King James Version renders it): And the evening and the morning were the Xth day. We would expect the literal Hebrew to say, and were evening and morning day X. But it does not. This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it does suggest that day here is to be taken some unusual manner. This is a common misunderstanding of the nature of language. Simply because Hebrew does not act like English does not mean that it is wrong. The Hebrew expression,.dj;a, /y rq,boayhiyòw" br,[,ayhiyòw" may be awkward to an English reader, but this by no means indicates that it was at all ambiguous to a Hebrew reader. As a matter of fact, we do not expect the literal Hebrew to say anything other than it does. Simply because the author does not say what Hugh Ross expects him to say does not mitigate against a literal interpretation. In fact, contrary to Ross assertion about the literal word-for-word translation, the actual translation would be, And it was evening, and it was morning day X. The verb hy:h; is the third-person, masculine, singular, Qal form which literally contains its own subject, it. But, the normal word order of Hebrew is verb, subject, object. A literal English rendering of the Hebrew sentence would be, And morning was, and evening was first day. So, contrary to Ross assertion, the literal Hebrew clearly indicates that the two periods, the night which ended by the morning, and day, which ended by the evening, constituted the first day. But, it is possible to think of a 24 hour period in these terms. When morning comes, the night ends. When evening come, the day ends.
But, it is also possible to think of the boundaries of morning and evening as delineating the period of light in which God created. Morning marked the beginning of the first period of light, and evening marked its end. The first period marked by a morning and and evening were the first period of light which God had designated day. Ross is guilty of imposing upon Hebrew his expectations as an English reader. 5. The uniqueness of the seventh day. Of the first six creation days Moses wrote: There was evening, and there was morning the Xth day. This wording indicates that each of the first six creation days had a beginning and an ending. However, no such wording is attached to the seventh creation day, neither in Genesis 1-2 nor anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this distinct change in form for the seventh day strongly suggests this day has (or had) not yet ended. Once again I think Ross has employed an argument that mitigates against his own view. It is precisely the lack of temporal markers that indicates the uniqueness of the seventh day. But if the seventh day is unique in that it is a long period of time, what would be unique if all the other six were also long periods of time? Additionally, the seventh day is in fact not a creation day. It is a day of rest in contrast to the creation days. Nevertheless, the uniqueness of the seventh day does not argue for the meaning of the word day in the other instances precisely because the word is not used with reference to this day. It is precisely because the seventh day is unique that the repetitive expression, and it was evening, and it was morning, day Xth, is not used. In its literal sense, the seventh day was just like the other days. It was a 24 hour period. But, in its spiritual significance, the rest of God never comes to an end. Moses deliberately omitted the literal references in order to allow for this spiritual application. Another consideration is the age of Adam when he sinned in the garden. If the days of the creation week are long periods of time, then Adam must have been several thousand years old before he sinned. Adam could not have sinned in any of the seven days of the creation week because 1) he was not created in the first five days; 2) the description of the sixth day events does not recount a fall (Gen. 2); 3) it was after the end of the sixth day that God pronounce all things very good. It could not have been on the seventh day that Adam sinned, since this was the day of rest. It must have been after the seventh day that Adam and Eve sinned. Now, if each of the seven days of the creation week were long periods of time, then Adam could not have sinned until at least after the end of the sixth day, and most probably after the end of the seventh day. But, if the days are long periods of time, then in order for Adam to live through the sixth and seventh days, he must have been several thousand years old before he sinned in the garden. But this is clearly unbiblical. 6. The events of the sixth day. Genesis 1 tells us that the land mammals and both Adam and Even were created on the sixth day. Genesis 2 provides further amplification, listing events between Adam s creation and Eve s. First, God planted a garden in Eden, making all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground. Then Adam, after receiving instructions from God, worked and cared for the Garden of Eden. After that, he carried out his assignment from God to name all the animals... Ross goes on to talk about Adam s supposed interaction with the plants and animals such
that Adam has sufficient interaction to discover he needed Eve. Of course the text does not say that Adam discovered he needed Eve. Rather, it was God who made this pronouncement with reference to Adam. He goes on to say, Still later on the sixth day Adam and Eve received instructions from God... The problem here is Ross interpretation of the text. First of all, it does not say that God caused plants to grow up from seeds. Rather, it simply said He planted a garden. I ve seen competent gardeners plant a garden in a single day with full grown plants. Couldn t God have done that? Secondly, it does not say that Adam actually worked and cared for the garden. In fact, this translation is questionable. It may be the case that the text is saying the God rested Adam in the garden to worship and serve Him. But, even if we accept Ross translation, the text does not say that he actually did any working and caring for the garden. Rather, it says that is why God put him there. It say God put Adam there in order to do this. It does not say whether he had actually done any. Thirdly, his claim that Adam and Eve received instruction still later on the sixth day is eisegesis. It does not say it was later on that day. It simply says, these events happened after Eve s creation. They could have happened in a matter of minutes after Eve was created. There is no indication from the text as to the lapse of time. Ross is simply reading into the text what he thinks must be there for the text to make sense to him. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. 7. The wording of Genesis 2:4. This verse, a summary statement for the creation account, in the literal Hebrew reads, These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making. Here the word day refers to all six creation days (and the creation of the universe that took place prior to the first creation day). This objection is obviated since we have already shown the use of the word day with ordinals. Additionally, this is in fact a summary statement, not a literal description of the events of creation. Like the first summary statement in Gen. 1:1, the word heavens does not literally mean only heavens, but is a figurative use for the universe as distinct from the earth. Additionally, it is a misinterpretation of the passage to say that the universe was created before the first creation day. Ross is imposing his interpretation on the text to make it say what he wants. 8. Biblical figures of speech for the earth s age. In describing the eternity of God s existence, several Bible writers often compare it to the longevity of the mountains or the foundations of the earth.... The brief span of a 3000-year terrestrial history (in the context of the wisdom literature) seems an inadequate metaphor for God s eternality. The fact that the Bible does consider the antiquity of the founding of the earth a suitable metaphor for God s eternality suggests the biblical view of a very ancient earth. Even if this were true, this still does not address the idea of long creation days. It could simply be the case that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days a long, long time ago. However, the operative term here is seem. The question is, to whom does the metaphor seem or not seem to be adequate? Is what seems to be adequate to Hugh Ross the measuring rod of what kind of metaphors the Bible must be allowed to use? A 3000-year terrestrial history might certainly have seemed an adequate metaphor to these ancient people! However, from where does Ross get this 3000-year terrestrial history? I don t know of any young-earthers who
hold this idea, and it is not a necessary concomitant to a young earth position. Ten-thousand years is young in comparison to the millions and billions of years of evolutionists, but tenthousand years does not mitigate against a young earth position, and it seems to me to be quite an adequate metaphor. 9. Explicit statements of earth s antiquity. Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares that the mountains are ancient and the hills are age-old. In 2 Peter 3:5, the heavens (the stars and the universe) are said to have existed long ago. My response to this is, So? It is certainly unfortunate that Moses audience did not have Habakkuk and 2 Peter as grids through which to interpret Genesis 1. The terms ancient, ageold, and long ago are relative to the writers of these biblical passages and to their audiences. What constitutes the idea of ancient in the biblical text is not measured by the assumptions and world views of the modern empirical scientists. Since the modern reader is quite used to thinking in terms of billions of years, a ten-thousand year old earth might certainly not qualify as ancient. But, for the scientifically primitive culture of 1400 B.C., or the first century A.D., tenthousand years might have seemed extremely long ago. Once again Ross is imposing upon the text his modern world view and what he thinks must be there if the text is going to make sense to him. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. Conclusion: Contrary to Ross conclusion, several of his arguments do not come from Bible passages directly addressing the length of the creation day. Rather, they come from Ross misinterpretation of these passages.