Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

XV. Evolution Has Resulted in Much Evil. Creation Leads to Righteousness.

Not all evolutionists accept all of the beliefs we are about to list. But all of the following beliefs and practices can be proved to be based on or encouraged by evolution.
Atheism, agnosticism, and humanism

We have already thoroughly documented that evolution is a necessary, fundamental belief of those who reject faith in God. They must have an explanation for the universe without God, and evolution is the only possibility. We have also shown that acceptance of evolution has led many people to lose their faith in God.
Germany and WWI

Anthropologist Ashley Montagu described a book entitled Germany and the Next War written by Friederich von Bernhardi. He said that Bernhardi believed war "'is a biological necessity' … In proof thereof such notions of Darwin's as 'The Struggle for Existance,' [sic] 'Natural Selection,' and the 'Survival of the Fittest' are invoked …" This book was written in 1911 and was approved by German officials. Three years later WWI began. (Davidheiser, p. 352)
Fascism and Hitler's Nazism

Wallbank and Taylor said, regarding the views of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: "Social Darwinism and the antidemocratic cult of naked power, as preached by advocates like Nietzsche, were laying the foundations of fascism, which would one day plunge the world into the most terrible convulsion in its history." (Davidheiser, p. 352)

Benito Mussolini brought fascism to Italy. Robert E.D. Clark said: "Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it should hinder the evolutionary process." (Davidheiser, p. 352)

Hitler said: "The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak." (HRQ, p. 58; Evolution: Science Falsely So-called, 19th Edition, p. 81)

Dr. Raymond Surburg said of Hitler: "Few people realize that Hitler, in bringing about World War II, merely put into practice what he believed was human evolution. Darwin and Nietzsche were the two philosophers studied by the National Socialists in working out the philosophy set forth in Hitler's Mein Kampf. In this work, Hitler asserted that men rose from animals by fighting." (Thompson)

Sir Arthur Keith said: "The German Fuehrer … has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." (Thompson)

This was the reason for the holocaust: Jews and other races were considered "inferior" to the Germans and were not "fit" to "survive." Hitler practiced "survival of the fittest" and sought to improve the human race by selective breeding and elimination of those unfit.
Communism

In the preface to the Communist Manifesto, Engels said that the basic theory of communism "is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology" (CM-3,4).

A few months after Darwin's Origin of Species was published, Engels wrote to Marx saying, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." Later Marx wrote to Engels: "…these last few weeks, I have read … Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." Shortly afterward Marx wrote: "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history" (Impact, 10/87).

The International Socialist Review, 11/80, contained an article by Cliff Conner regarding evolution vs. creation. He said: "Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start." He included some of the material quoted above, then he concluded: "…we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary dialectical understanding of nature." (Acts & Facts, 2/81, pp. 2,4)

We are told that Marx wanted to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin. Marx autographed a copy of the book for Darwin saying he was a "sincere admirer" of Darwin. (Impact, 10/87).

Lenin said: "Darwin put an end to the belief that animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God…" (Impact, 10/87).

Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism defines the Marxist view in a way that is clearly evolutionary: "Nature, as well as all its individual phenomena, is in constant process of development. The laws of that development have not been ordained by God … They are intrinsic in nature itself…" (FML-16).

We have earlier quoted Stalin's biography which shows how he became an atheist from reading Darwin.

Clearly these communist leaders all believed Darwin's view of evolution, and they viewed evolution as the basis for atheism and communism. Furthermore, they practice "survival of the fittest" like Hitler did. They have murdered millions of people whom they considered to be "inferior" because they opposed communism.
Psychology

Sigmund Freud described himself as "a completely godless Jew," and "a hopeless pagan." He is called a "follower of Darwin." (Berkley, p. 104; Adams, p. 16). He viewed the Bible accounts as "fairy tales" (Adams, p. 16).

There is a major, highly influential branch of psychology called Humanistic Psychology. We have already described humanists and documented that humanists are unbelievers in God but believers in evolution.

Erich Fromm is described as an atheist, materialist, and humanist, who believed that, if such a thing as Divinity exists, it is man who is Divine (Vitz, p. 20). He said: "The position taken by humanistic ethics [is] that man is able to know what is good and to act accordingly on the strength of his natural potentialities and of his reason…" (Vitz, p. 19).

B. F. Skinner was so committed to humanism that he signed up as an official endorser of "Humanist Manifesto II."
New Age Movement

The modern New Age Movement is an attempt to introduce paganism and the occult into the thinking of modern Americans.

James Lovelock is a leader in the modern Gaian Hypothesis which views the earth as a living organism, in fact a goddess, which evolves and controls evolution. He wrote: "…as far back as the earliest artifacts can be found, it seems that the Earth was worshipped as a goddess and believed to be alive."

He said also: "The evolution of the species and the evolution of their environment are tightly coupled together as a single and inseparable process."

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake said: "All nature is evolutionary. The cosmos is like a great developing organism, and evolutionary creativity is inherent in nature herself."

These views are the basis of much of the current thinking of the environmentalist movement. (All the above found in Impact #234, 12/92.)
Abortion

Evolution is a fundamental belief underlying the modern acceptance of abortion.

Dr. Carl Sagan is a well-known astronomer and author, who appears on the Cosmos series on Public TV. He is an ardent evolutionist, and a defender of abortion.

In Parade Magazine, 4/22/90, he co-authored an article defending abortion. His argument was based on the evolutionary argument that the developing fetus in the mother's womb passes through the various stages of its evolutionary history. The force of his argument is that, in the various animal stages it passes through, it is no more wrong to kill it than it would be to kill an animal. (Back to Genesis, #48, 12/92)

The fact is that abortion fits perfectly with the evolutionary mind set. If killing animals is acceptable, then killing humans is acceptable too since we are just advanced animals. And the less advanced the human is, the less intelligent and capable of productive work it is, the more acceptable it is to kill it. This justifies the modern abortion and euthanasia movement.

Hitler practiced abortion as a means of "survival of the fittest." He believed people unfit to live should be killed. Much of it was done on unborn babies, but he was willing to practice it on people of all ages. How far is our society from his?

Acts 17:24 - The Bible shows that, when we realize God is the creator, we must also recognize Him as Lord. If He made the world, He deserves to rule it and we must accept His will. [Rom. 1:20]

When we compromise the Bible statements about our origin, we end up being confused about our purpose in life, our destiny after life, and the standard by which we ought to live our lives. We can understand our purpose in life, our goal, and the proper standard for life only when we understand our origin.
Conclusion

Let us summarize the fundamental dangers that face anyone who becomes a believer in evolution:

1. Evolution undermines faith in God and encourages unbelief.

2. It denies the truth of hundreds of passages throughout the Bible.

3. It encourages denial of all other Bible miracles including the virgin birth and the resurrection.

4. It denies man is in the image of God and makes us mere animals.

5. It denies the Divine origin and authority for marriage.

6. It destroys our means for recognizing false teachers.

7. It denies the fall of man and the origin of sin and death.

8. It destroys the meaning and purpose of life.

9. It implies that man is wholly material without eternal rewards.

10. It destroys the basis for determining eternal rewards.

11. It eliminates the means for becoming a child of God.

12. It makes Jesus just a fallible human or a legend.

13. It undermines the relationship between Jesus and His church.

14. It destroys the concept of absolute moral standards and promotes human wisdom and lack of restraint.

15. It denies the need for salvation through Jesus.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Days of Creation:
Literal Days or Long Ages? History, Symbol, Myth, or Legend?
Is the Genesis account of creation literal history and fact, or is it symbol, myth, and legend? Are the days of creation literal days or long ages (Progressive Creation)?
Is the Genesis account of creation literal history and fact, or is it symbol, myth, and legend? Are the days of creation literal days or long ages ("Progressive Creation")? What effect do such questions have regarding the evidence for our faith in God, Jesus, and the Bible? Can the Bible teaching about creation be harmonized with the claims of evolution and many "scientists" that the earth and life developed gradually over billions of years? Does it really matter?

Introduction:
The Bible clearly states that God created all things in the universe in six days.

Exodus 20:11 - "In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

The following verses use the terms "day" or "days" to describe various aspects of the time element of creation: Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23,31; 2:2,3; 5:1,2; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Heb. 4:4. These verses would naturally lead us to believe that creation occurred in six literal, consecutive days of essentially 24 hours each.
Controversy exists, however, regarding the length of these days.

Modern "scientific" theory argues that the earth has existed for 4 or 5 billion years. Although this claim is unproved, some want to harmonize the Bible with it. Some attempt this by denying that creation occurred in six literal, consecutive days.

Some say the "days" were not literal days but long ages. Others say the "days" were not consecutive, but long ages occurred between the "days." Such views are sometimes called "Progressive Creation." Note that, to include the 4 to 5 billion years of "scientific" theory, each creation "day" (or the periods between) must average 700 million years in length!

The purpose of this study is to examine carefully the Bible evidence regarding the days of creation.

[Soldier4Christ]

I. The Importance of the Issue

Some say that the length of the days has little consequence, so we should overlook these non-literal views. But the days of creation are important because they are an integral part of the doctrine of creation, which is a fundamental proof of God and the Bible. To weaken the doctrine about the days of creation is to weaken the doctrine of creation itself. And to undermine or weaken the doctrine of creation is to undermine or weaken faith in God and the Bible as God's word, including the New Testament. This is the consequence of Progressive Creation (long ages in the creation account).
A. Creation as Doctrine for Today

Some imply that the doctrine of creation is not important today, because it is Old Testament doctrine. But consider what the New Testament teaches:
We must not change or teach differently from God's word.

Matthew 15:9,13 - We must not teach man-made doctrine.

Galatians 1:8,9 - We must not teach differently from the gospel of Christ

2 John 9-11 - If we do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, we do not have God.

1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:13 - We should hold fast the pattern of sound words and teach no other doctrine.

[Colossians 3:17; Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 14:12; 3:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19]
Jesus rebuked people who do not believe Moses' writings.

John 5:46,47 - Believing Moses leads us to believe Jesus and His word. If we don't believe Moses' writings, we will not believe Jesus' words!

Luke 24:25-27 - Failure to believe Moses' writings leads to failure to accept the truth of Jesus and His teachings.

God has changed His commandments from the Old Testament to the New, but records of history do not change. In order to confirm the New Testament, we must accept Old Testament prophecy and history, especially miracles such as creation. Rejecting the accuracy of Moses' writings will lead us to reject New Testament truths!
The doctrine of creation is part of the gospel.

Specifically, the doctrine of creation is a part of the gospel, the doctrine of Christ.

Matthew 19:4 - Jesus taught that God made male and female at the beginning. Note that creation is part of Jesus' doctrine! [1 Cor. 11:9,12; 15:45,45; 1 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:4]

John 1:1-3,10 - In fact Jesus Himself was the one through whom all things were made. [Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16,17; Heb. 1:2]

Acts 4:24 - Early disciples worshipped saying God made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them. [1 Tim. 6:13; Heb. 1:10; 3:4; Rev. 4:11; 10:6; 14:7]

Acts 14:15; 17:24-29 - Preaching the gospel to idol worshipers included creation as fundamental doctrine.

Note that "preach" in Acts 14:15 (NKJV) is the word for preaching the gospel. The NASB says we "preach the gospel to you" that you should turn "to a living God who made the heaven and the earth..." (cf. ASV). Creation is identified as part of the gospel and one of the first doctrines unbelievers need to learn!

Romans 1:20,25 - Creation proves the power and Deity of God, so men should worship Him.

Hebrews 11:3 - Creation is part of New Testament faith.

James 3:9 - Man was made in the likeness of God.

1 Peter 4:19 - We commit our souls in doing good and suffer for God, because He is the Creator.

Hebrews 4:4 - God rested from His works on the seventh day. Here the New Testament confirms the Old Testament teaching that the work was accomplished in the first six days.

Creation is fundamental New Testament doctrine - the doctrine of Christ - just as surely as it was in the Old Testament. Therefore, all the passages forbidding us to change gospel teaching apply to the doctrine of creation!

[Soldier4Christ]

B. Other Doctrines Confirmed by Creation

The doctrine of creation is also fundamental to other major doctrines that Christians must believe.
Creation demonstrates the position of man.

Creation teaches that man was created in the image of God, below the angels but above the animals -- Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8:3-8.

Confusion about creation leads to confusion about our own position in the universe. What could be more basic than that?
Creation proves the power of God's word.

Creation was accomplished by God's spoken word -- Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26; Psalm 33:6-9; Psalm 148:3-5; Hebrews 11:3.

As with other miracles, creation confirms the power/authority of God's word. Note: Matthew 8:5-13; 2 Peter 3:5-7. See Psalm 105:31,34; 106:9; John 11:39-44; 5:28,29.

Likewise, our eternal salvation depends on the power of God's word -- 2 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; Hebrews 4:12; Romans 1:16.

So any view that undermines the doctrine of creation likewise undermines faith in the power of Scripture, including faith in the power of the gospel to save us from sin! What could be more basic than that?
Creation proves God is the living Source of all life.

Creation affirms that all life comes from God - Genesis 1:11,12,20,21,24-27; 2:7,21-23; Job 33:4; Isaiah 42:5; 1 Timothy 6:13.

This proves God is the living God, the source of all life - Genesis 1:26,27; Acts 14:15; 17:24-29; Revelation 10:6.

God likewise is the source of spiritual and eternal life - John 1:1-4; 14:6; Romans 6:4; John 5:26-29; Romans 6:23; John 6:63,68; Matthew 25:46.

So every view that undermines the Bible doctrine of creation thereby undermines our faith in God as the Giver of life, including spiritual and eternal life. How can that not be fundamental to Christians?
Creation proves God's eternal existence.

As the eternal uncaused cause of all that exists, God must have existed in eternity before the creation. John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16,17; Isaiah 40:28; Psalms 90:2; Revelation 10:6.

Any view that undermines our faith in creation likewise undermines our faith that God is eternal.
Creation proves God's unlimited wisdom.

Creation demonstrates that God's wisdom is unlimited - Psalm 136:5-9; Jeremiah 51:15; Proverbs 3:19; 8:22-31.

As God's creatures, we must trust Him as the ultimate source of wisdom - Psalms 119:73; Proverbs 3:19-26; 8:30-36.

But His wisdom is revealed in the Scriptures - Psalm 19:7; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

So again, any view that undermines the doctrine of creation, thereby undermines our faith in the wisdom of God. This is turn undermines our reasons for following the Bible as God's revealed wisdom. How can that not be fundamental to Christians?
Creation proves God's unlimited power.

Creation demonstrates God's great power -- Psalms 65:6; 86:8-10; 89:11-13; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:5; 32:17; Romans 1:20.

The same power that created the world is the power to save us and give us eternal life -- 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16; Heb. 7:25.

Any view that undermines the doctrine of creation likewise undermines our faith in the power of God, including God's power to save us and give us eternal life! What could possibly be more important?
Creation proves God's right to control the universe.

Because God created the universe, it belongs to Him so He rules as Lord over it - Psalm 24:1,2; 89:11,12; 95:5 Deuteronomy 32:5,6; Isaiah 29:16; Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:15-17; 1 Peter 4:19; Romans 1:25.

Any view that undermines the doctrine of creation, thereby undermines our understanding of God's right to rule our lives and our obligation to serve God. Who can say that is not of first importance to Christians?
Creation proves God's right to be worshipped.

Only the Creator should be worshipped, for only He has ultimate power - Deuteronomy 32:15-18; Psalm 86:8-10; 139:13,14; 149:1,2; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 33:6-9; 95:1-7; 148:1-6; Romans 1:25; 11:36; Revelation 4:11; 14:6,7.

So any view that undermines the Bible doctrine of creation, thereby also undermines our very reasons for worshipping God.
In short, creation proves that God Is God!

These conclusions follow from all we have already learned. It is specifically taught in the following passages: 2 Kings 19:15; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 86:8-10; 95:1-7; 100:3; Isaiah 45:18; Jeremiah 10:11,12; 1 Chron. 16:25-35 and Psalm 96:2-10; Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24-29; Romans 1:20.

And this is just the beginning. Many other New Testament doctrines are based directly on the doctrine of creation - Matt. 19:1-12; 1 Cor. 15:22-49; Rom.5:12-14; 1 Tim. 2:12-15; 1 Cor. 6;16; 11:8; Eph. 5:22-33.

Any view that undermines the Bible doctrine of creation, thereby undermines our ability to even recognize who God is! How then can the doctrine of creation not be a fundamental part of the gospel?

For more details on these points, see our article about the Significance of Creation.

[Soldier4Christ]

C. The Importance of Creation as a Miracle.

Creation accomplishes all the above because it is miraculous. It is the first miracle (actually a series of miracles), and therefore forms the basis of our understanding or all other miracles and all Divine power.
Miracles serve to confirm God and His word.

Miracles are events that are impossible by natural law or human ability, so they could only happen by Divine power and wisdom. When they have occurred in history, they serve as evidence that God exists, that Jesus is God's Son, and that the Bible is God's word.

See the passages in the previous section and see Exodus 7:3-5; 8:10; 14:4,30,31; Deuteronomy 4:32-45; Mark 16:20; John 5:36; 20:30,31; Acts 2:22; 14:3; 2 Corinthians 12:11,12; Hebrews 2:3,4; 1 Kings 18:36-39; Exodus 4:1-9.

The power of the doctrine of creation lies in its greatness as a miracle and a fundamental proof of God and His word. It follows that we must avoid any doctrine that weakens or undermines the force of that miracle. Specifically:
True believers must accept Bible records of miracles as literal, historic fact.

The power of miracles as evidence rests entirely on their validity as historic fact. Unless they are contrary to natural law but nevertheless occurred as true, historic fact, then they prove nothing about God or His will.

So to deny the literal, historic Bible descriptions of miracles - to claim that some supernatural aspects are legendary or symbolic - is to deny the accuracy of the Bible and to belittle the force of the miracle. This encourages rejection of the evidence for God, the Bible, and Jesus. And the more fundamental a miracle is to our faith, the greater are the consequences if we deny its historic validity.
Compare creation to the virgin birth (Luke 1:34,35) and the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 1:4).

The Bible records all these miracles as historic facts having major significance in validating God's existence, Jesus' authority, and God's word. But all are impossible according to the laws of science, so some folks try to reconcile the Bible to science by saying that the Bible accounts are not literal, historic fact.

But denying that the Bible accounts are historic fact has the effect of eliminating the power of the miracles as evidence to substantiate Divine claims! Such views constitute modernism or liberalism. Those who hold them are not true believers.
Satan undermines the power of miracles by weakening or denying the supernatural elements of miracles.

An event is a miracle because it involves certain specific characteristics that only Divine power could accomplish. To accept an event as a miracle, we must accept as literal, historic fact the specific supernatural elements that make up the event. To deny or undermine the supernatural elements that make an event miraculous is to deny or undermine the miracle itself!

To avoid the power of true miracles, Satan offers "false miracles" - 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (Acts 8:5-13; Exodus 7:10-13; 1 Kings 18:20-40; Acts 19:11-17).

False miracles claim to be supernatural, but they lack the elements that overwhelm us with evidence of supernatural intervention. By getting people to call these events "miracles" though they lack the characteristics of true miracles, Satan is able to dilute or weaken the power of real miracles as evidence for God and His word.

Satan then belittles the supernatural elements of God's miracles - Matthew 28:11-15 (Matt. 12:24; Ex. 7:10-13; John 9:18-21).

Since the supernatural characteristics of miracles are what convince people to believe in God and His will, those are the aspects Satan attacks. He tries to convince people that these supernatural elements could occur by natural means other than by God's power.

If people do not recognize the supernatural elements of a miracle, then the miracle cannot produce faith. That is why Satan attacks them. And that is why believers must defend those supernatural elements as historic, literal truth. We must never accept natural explanations that are substituted for the supernatural elements of Biblical accounts of miraculous healings, the virgin birth, the resurrection, or creation.
In particular, true believers must never compromise the supernatural time element in a miracle.

The importance of the time element

The time element is one supernatural aspect that demonstrates an event to be a true miracle. The length of time it takes is often stated as one reason to believe God must have done it. Specifically, many accounts of miracles specify that they happened suddenly. Given a much longer time period, one might suspect that the event could have occurred by nature. But the shortness of the time demonstrates that God must have done it.

It follows that we must recognize the Biblical record of the time element of a miracle to be historic fact. To claim it is symbolic, figurative, or less than historic fact is to compromise the Bible account and defeat the purpose of the miracle as evidence.

Consider, for example, miraculous healings.

One reason we know supernatural healings were miracles is that they occurred immediately or instantaneously. They did not take days, weeks, or months to gradually develop. See Acts 3:7; Luke 13:11-13; Mark 2:10-12; 5:25-29; 5:35-42; Acts 13:11; 14:8-11; John 9:1,6,7; Mark 1:42; Luke 7:14,15; etc.

By contrast, in most modern so-called miracles, if healing occurs at all, it takes days, weeks, or months. Such gradual healings could be explained as natural processes. They are claimed as miracles, but the time element proves they are not really miraculous.

Likewise, God sometimes reveals time aspects of other Bible miracles. The fact they happened at exactly the time God specified, or that they occurred so quickly, gives evidence that they were supernatural. [1 Kings 18:25-30,35-39]

So when God states a specific time element in a miracle, we must accept the time as literal, historic fact. The power of a Bible miracle is defeated or compromised if people conclude that the time element is just figurative or symbolic.

This is why the time element is so important in creation. If God specifically stated the time duration of creation, and if that time is one element that demonstrates the supernatural nature of the event, then Christians must believe and defend that time element. To do otherwise would weaken the force of creation as evidence.

[Soldier4Christ]

II. The Meaning of the Word "Day" in Creation Accounts

Having examined the importance of considering the length of the days of Creation, we now consider the Bible evidence regarding the meaning or definition of the word "day."
A. Creation as an Historical Miracle
The Bible repeatedly views creation as literal history.

The account is part of a book which is clearly presented as history.

Genesis describes the lives of real people in historical settings naming individuals, places, rulers, etc.

Throughout the Bible creation is viewed as a literal historical event.

This is confirmed by the Scriptures already listed. Creation is never viewed as allegory, legend, myth, figure of speech, or parable.

The whole Bible from Genesis on views the creation account as literal history. To view the account as figurative or allegorical is to deny or belittle the integrity of Genesis and of all Scripture!
Specifically creation is clearly viewed as a miracle of major significance.

See the previous evidence of Bible emphasis on creation.

It follows that we must take the account to be literal history, especially those elements that emphasize the supernatural nature of the event. To take these supernatural elements to be figurative or non-literal is to belittle and undermine the force of the miracle. Such an approach contributes to liberal, modernistic thinking. It weakens our defense of truth and leads people to wonder what other Bible miracles should be taken as non-literal allegories, etc.
The time element of creation is a supernatural element that must be taken literally.

The Bible repeatedly states that the creation occurred in six days. The time element is referenced nine times in the Genesis account itself -- Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31; 2:2 (two references); 2:3. It is directly referenced elsewhere eight times (Gen. 5:1,2; Ex. 20:11 (twice); 31:17 (twice); and Heb. 4:4 (twice). That makes 17 direct references to the time element in creation. How can this be unimportant?

Since the Bible clearly presents creation as a miracle and clearly emphasizes the time element as a significant part of that miracle, then for all the reasons described above, true believers must accept the time element as literal, historic fact: six literal, consecutive days, followed by a literal day of rest.

To claim long ages in creation is to compromise a basic supernatural element of a major miracle. It weakens the miraculous nature of the Bible evidence, making it easier for people to believe in evolution over long ages by natural processes. But when we recognize the time element to be literal, then no one can possibly believe that creation could occur by natural processes. It must be a miracle demonstrating the existence of God and the power of His word.

If we compromise the time element of creation, it is natural to question what other supernatural elements or other miracles we may deny. Why must we take other plain statements about creation to be historic fact? In short, why not simply accept Theistic evolution? And then why not take other Bible miracles to be figurative or symbolic, till all supernatural elements of all Bible miracles are removed?

Since the Bible presents creation as a major historical miracle, true believers must defend every supernatural element of the account as literal, historical fact, including the days. To compromise is to undermine and weaken faith in the Bible, faith in other Bible miracles, and ultimately faith in God.

[Soldier4Christ]

B. "Days" Plural

Some point out that "day" may refer to periods other than 24 hours. Some even claim that the Hebrew YOM is a generic word referring indefinitely to time; so "age" or "time" (not "day"") is its proper meaning. However, in the nearly 2000 verses that use YOM, it is translated "age" or "time" in only about 70 instances. The almost overwhelming translation is "day" or "days." Are the translators of all major English translations overwhelmingly wrong here?

Study of context shows that, in about 95% of cases, YOM refers either to the literal 24-hour day or to the period of daylight (in contrast to night). So "day" is clearly the proper meaning, and the "days" of creation are highly unlikely to be long periods. And I know of no instance where a Bible "day" includes many thousands of years, let alone 700 million years. I conclude that those who argue that YOM means "age" or "time" are simply trying to avoid the force of Bible evidence by changing a word from its specific meaning to make it generic.

But God does much more regarding creation than just use the word "day." He uses it in contexts and He gives us additional information about the "days so as to leave no doubt about their meaning.

So consider now two passages that say God created all things in six "days": Exodus 20:11; 31:17. We will see that "days" (plural) is more precise than just "day."

The best way to understand a Bible word is to study how it is used in the context of Bible passages. Let us do this for the word "days" (plural). [Hebrew YOM or YOWM - Strong's number H3117 and Greek HEMERA - G2250.]
I have attempted to examine every verse where the NKJV translation uses the word "days" (plural).

[Soldier4Christ]

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the "days" are each literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.


Type of book  Total verses  Literal days  Long ages??  Millions of years
OT Law               191             all              none              none
OT History          187             all              none              none
OT Poetry            86             all              none               none
OT Prophecy      168            162             6(??)              none
Total OT             632            626             6(??)              none
NT History          116             all             none               none
NT Epistles          17             all             none               none
NT Prophecy         9               4             5(??)               none
Total NT            142            137             5(??)              none
Bible Total         774            763            11(??)             none


Observations about the results:

(1) Regardless of context, "days" longer than literal days are highly unlikely.

(2) If we consider context all possible examples of longer periods are found in prophecy, never in history or doctrine or even poetry. Prophecy commonly uses words symbolically, so such a use proves nothing about historical or doctrinal contexts. But creation accounts are history and doctrine, not prophecy. So any attempt to determine the meaning of "days" in creation by appealing to prophetic texts would misuse Scripture.

(3) Moses uses "days" 191 times. All are literal; none refer to long ages. So why should we believe the "days" of creation are long ages in Exodus 20 & 31?

(4) Overall, "days" occurs almost 600 times in history, doctrine, and poetry. Always each day is literal, never a long period of time. To argue for long ages in Ex. 20 and 31 is to speak without Bible precedent.

(5) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses "days" to refer to ages lasting many hundreds of millions of years each. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.
"Days" translated "age" or "time"

The above comments refer to "days" (plural) when translated "days." However, in six verses YOM is translated "age." In every case, YOM is plural. Further, in over sixty verses YOM is translated "time." In the majority of these YOM is plural. While not included in the chart above, these instances do not conflict with the results but completely harmonize with them.

When YOM is plural and is translated "time" or "age," the "age" or "time" is indefinite in length, not because the "days" are not literal, but simply because the context does not tell how many days are included. There is no evidence that each of the "days" is a long time period. Hence, these cases too are compatible with a literal meaning for "days."

The use of "days" to refer to creation compels us to conclude the days are literal, not long periods.

(Click for a detailed discussion of "days" plural, including a complete list of the passages.)

[Soldier4Christ]

C. "Day" with a Cardinal Number

A "cardinal" number simply indicates how many items are being described ("one," "two," "three," etc.). This contrasts to an "ordinal" number, which also indicates the order of the items ("first," "second," "third," etc.).

Three passages refer to days of creation using a cardinal number: Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Genesis 1:5. Some versions translate the latter passage as an ordinal number ("first day"), but the original text has a cardinal number ("one day" - see ASV, NASB, NKJV footnote; etc.).

Counting a specific number of days implies a more precise or exact meaning than simply saying "day" or "days."
I attempted to examine every passage in the Bible using a cardinal number with the word for "day."

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the days are literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.


Type of book  Total verses  Literal days  Long ages??  Millions of years
OT Law              114              all               none                none
OT History           71              all               none                none
OT Poetry             1               all               none                none
OT Prophecy       33               22             11(??)               none
Total OT            219             208             11(??)               none
NT History          46               all               none               none
NT Epistles          5                 4                  1                 none
NT Prophecy        6              none            6(??)               none
Total NT             57               50               7(??)               none
Bible Total        276              258             18(??)              none

Observations about the results:

(1) Moses uses "day" with a cardinal number over 100 times. Always it refers to literal days, never to longer periods! What are the chances that all three of such references to creation "days" mean long periods?

(2) At least 235 verses of history or doctrine contain "day" with a cardinal number. Every one of them refers to literal days. Since references to creation days are in contexts of history and doctrine, why would anyone think they are not literal days? (The one apparent exception is not really an exception, as noted below).

(3) Of the 18 instances where "day" may be longer than literal days, all are found in prophecy. As already observed, this proves nothing about how the word is used in historical or doctrinal contexts.

(4) And no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses day with a cardinal number to mean an age of many hundreds of millions of years. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

(5) Furthermore, whenever a cardinal number of days describes an event (such as creation in "six days"), the days are always consecutive, sequential days. I find no exceptions in Old Testament or New Testament. Hence, the creation references to "day" with a cardinal number prove both that the days themselves are literal and that no long ages occurred between the days.

Clearly the inspired writer intended to state that creation occurred in six consecutive, literal days.
Notes on 2 Peter 3:8

2 Peter 3:8 is in an epistle and uses "day" with a cardinal number to refer to a long period: with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Some claim this proves that the days of creation may be longer than literal days. Please consider:

(a) "One day" is said to be "as" a thousand years. "As" proves this is a figurative use. Does this prove "day" always means 1000 years? Of course not! As in 2 Peter 3, something in context must imply a figurative meaning. What is there in the context of creation that proves the days are not literal?

(b) While 2 Peter is a doctrinal book, chapter 3 is clearly prophetic discussing Jesus' return. As already discussed, prophecy proves nothing about the meaning of time references in history or doctrine (such as creation).

(c) Peter answered those who say that God's prophecy of the end of the world had failed. Peter's point is that God said the world would end, but He never said when, so we cannot hold Him to any human timetable. The end will come when the circumstances are right, regardless of how long it takes. So whether it takes one day or a thousand years, makes no difference to God.

But none of this proves we can take God's statements figuratively when He does specify time in historic or doctrinal contexts. Whereas God never said when the world will end, He did say how long it took to create the universe: "six days." Context and usage show this was a historical, doctrinal truth communicated in understandable human language.

(d) And those who use 2 Peter 3:8 to justify long ages in creation do not believe their own argument. The passage says a day is as "a thousand years." But the day-age theory says each day must be as 700 million years!

[Soldier4Christ]

D. "Day" with an Ordinal Number

Again, an "ordinal" number tells, not just how many items are described, but also the order of the items ("first," "second," "third," etc.). As such, it gives even more information than a cardinal number.

The following ten passages refer to creation using "day" with an ordinal number: Genesis 1:8,13,19,23,31; 2:2,3; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Hebrews 4:4. [Remember, Gen. 1:5 is not listed here, because it has a cardinal number in the original.]
I attempted to examine every passage in the Bible using a ordinal number with the word for "day."

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (books of law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the days are literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.

Type of book  Total verses Literal days Long ages?? Millions of years
OT Law               112               all           none             none
OT History            55               all           none             none
OT Poetry               0               ---           none             none
OT Prophecy         14               13          1(??)             none
Total OT               181            180          1(??)             none
NT History             20              all           none             none
NT Epistles             4              all           none             none
NT Prophecy           0              ---           none             none
Total NT                24              all           none             none
Bible Total           205            204           1(??)             none

Observations about the results:

(1) Moses uses "day" with an ordinal number well over 100 times. It always mean literal days, never longer periods! So what are the chances that all nine of his creation references mean long periods of time? (We will later note a verse which some folks incorrectly claim is an exception.)

(2) All ten references to creation days are in contexts of history or doctrine. But in those contexts "day" with an ordinal always refers to literal days, never longer periods (over 190 instances).

(3) There is only one verse in the whole Bible where "day" with an ordinal number might be longer than a literal day. One! And that verse is prophecy, not history or doctrine, so again it proves nothing about historical or doctrinal contexts.

(4) Furthermore, when "day" is used with an ordinal number, the days are always consecutive, without exception. Hence, "day" with an ordinal number not only proves creation days are literal days, it also proves no long ages occurred between the days.

(5) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses "day" with an ordinal number to mean a "day" of hundreds of millions of years. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

[Soldier4Christ]

Notes on Deuteronomy 10:10

This passage says: As at the first time (YOM), I stayed in the mountain forty days and forty nights... "The first time" refers to the forty days and nights when Moses received the 10 Commands. So some claim this proves YOM with an ordinal number can mean long ages.

But even if "day" here did mean forty days, that hardly proves "day" with an ordinal number can mean thousands of years, let alone 700 million years.

However, YOM is here translated "time," not "day," because the word here is not singular, but plural! [See Davidson's Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, page 377,218, and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, page 752.]

The verse literally refers to the previous period of forty days as "the first days." So the text is completely literal. Rather than contradicting our claim, Deut. 10:10 simply confirms that YOM with an ordinal number consistently refers to literal days, except perhaps for one prophetic verse

[Soldier4Christ]

E. Sequences of days with ordinal numbers
In several cases, "day" with an ordinal number refers to two or more days in sequence.

They describe a "first day," "second day," etc., as in Genesis 1. The Bible contains thirteen such examples: Genesis 1:8-2:3; Exodus 14:9,10; Numbers 6:9,10; Numbers 7:12-78; Numbers 28:16,17; Numbers 29:17-35; Joshua 6:14,15; Judges 19:5-8; Judges 20:22-30; Esther 9:17; Esther 9:18; Esther 9:21; Ezekiel 45:21-25.

Every one of these cases describes consecutive literal 24-hour days! These are the closest possible parallels to Gen. 1, and all refer to consecutive, sequential literal days. Who then can reasonably argue that the days of creation are different?
Of special interest are long sequences of days with ordinal numbers (longer than just two days).

There are four of these:

Genesis 1&2 - The six days of creation followed by the day of rest.

Numbers 7:12-78 - Offerings at the dedication of the altar are described sequentially through twelve days.

Numbers 29:12-35 - Offerings are described sequentially through eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Judges 20:22-30 - Events of a battle are described sequentially through three days.

These sequences unquestionably all describe consecutive literal 24-hour days. No one would ever consider otherwise. Surely Genesis 1&2 must carry this same meaning.

The language of Scripture confirms that the inspired writer intended to state that creation occurred in six consecutive, literal days.

[Soldier4Christ]

F. "In Six Days"

Two passages state that God made everything "in six days": Exodus 20:11; 31:17. ("In" is added by the translators, because the context clearly implies it.)

Just as adding a specific number gives more information than just "day," so adding the word "in" tells that the entire event under consideration was completed within the time described: "in six days."
Here is a list of all Bible passages using an expression such as "in X days."

Exodus 20:11 -- For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth ...

Exodus 31:17 -- in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth

2 Chronicles 29:17 -- ... on the eighth day of the month they came to the vestibule of the LORD. Then they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days, and on the sixteenth day of the first month they finished.

Nehemiah 6:15 -- So the wall was finished ... in fifty-two days.

Matthew 26:61 -- I am able to ... build it in three days.

Matthew 27:40 -- You who destroy the temple and build it in three days

Mark 15:29 -- You who destroy the temple and build it in three days,

John 2:19 -- Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

John 2:20 -- It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?

Acts 20:6 -- But we sailed away from Philippi ... and in five days joined them at Troas
Observations about the examples:

(1) The expression "in X days" is used ten times in Scripture. Every time each "day" is a literal day, never a longer period!

(2) This expression means, not just literal days, but literal consecutive, sequential days. The entire point is to state the limits of a literal time span within which an event or task was completed. This proves, not just that creation days were literal days, but also that no long ages occurred between the days.

(3) But note what all occurred "in six days": "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them." God here affirms that all of creation was completely formed in six literal, consecutive days. To deny it is to flatly deny Scripture!

(4) For comparison, note that several verses state that Jesus arose "in three days" after His death (this is the meaning of Jesus' building the temple -- John 2:21,22). This means Jesus' resurrection was completed within a time span of three literal, consecutive days after His death. (Yes, the language can include partial days, but still they are days, not years, centuries, or millennia!) To deny this would be to deny the truthfulness of Scripture regarding a foundational miracle on which our faith is based.

Do we, or do we not, believe that Jesus literally arose "in three days"? If we take the time element figuratively, what else about it may we take figuratively?

Likewise, do we, or do we not, believe God created everything "in six days"? The attempt to include long ages in creation does more than just take the passages to be figurative; it flatly denies the truthfulness of Scripture about a miracle which is foundational to our faith! What else about creation or other foundational miracles may we take figuratively? Why not take the resurrection to be figurative?

The clear intent of Scripture is violated by all attempts to find long ages in creation.

[Soldier4Christ]

G. "Evening and Morning"
Each day in Genesis 1 is defined to consist of "evening and morning."

Genesis 1:5 - So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:8 -- So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:13 -- So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1:19 -- So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:23 -- So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1:31 -- So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God not only numbered each day, but to be even more specific He also emphasized by means of repetition that each day consisted of evening and morning.
I attempted to examine every passage in the Bible using the Hebrew words "evening" and "morning" together.

["Evening" (EREB - Strong's number H6153) and "morning" (BOQER - H1242)]

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the days are literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years

Type of book Total verses Literal days Long ages?? Millions of years
OT Law              20                all           none                none
OT History           8                all           none                none
OT Poetry            5                all           none                none
OT Prophecy       2                ??          2(??)                none
Total                  35               33+         2(??)               none


[For examples note Exodus 18:13; Ezra 3:3,4 [See also Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3; Num. 9:21; I Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; Job 4:20; Psa. 55:17; 65:8; Dan. 8:26]
Observations about the results:

(1) Moses used "evening" and "morning" together 20 times. Every time refers to literal days, never to longer periods! What are the chances that all six of the references to creation days mean long periods of time?

(2) All instances of history, law, or poetry describe literal days, never longer periods. Why would anyone think the days of creation are not literal days? (I will later discuss an example some might question.)

(3) In all the Old Testament, only twice might this expression refer to periods longer than a literal day. And those cases are prophecy, so they prove nothing about the words in historical or doctrinal contexts.

(4) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses the expression to refer to ages lasting hundreds of millions of years. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

Some folks try to assign a generic meaning to "morning" and "evening," such as a beginning and an ending. Even if these words individually could occasionally carry such meanings, the fact is that they never carry such meanings when used together in historic or doctrinal contexts.

"Evening" and "morning" used together describe a literal 24-hour day, except perhaps in prophecy. And they never refer to a period of hundreds of millions of years.

[Soldier4Christ]

Other expressions in the context of "evening and morning" strengthen this conclusion:

Genesis 1:5

Here darkness was called "night" and was separated from the light, which is called "day." ("Day" here is an alternative literal meaning of "day" - the daylight part of the day - but it surely does not prove "days" can be long periods.) Day/light and night/darkness are so closely associated with evening and morning that they appear to define the terms and thereby define a day!

"The first day" has a cardinal number, not an ordinal number: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (ASV). So the very first day defined the creation "days" to consist of "evening and morning," the darkness and the light. Since each day consisted of evening and morning, it follows that each creation day was a literal 24-hour day, not a long period.

Genesis 1:14-19

On the fourth day the heavenly bodies were designated to measure time. They divided day from night and ruled over the light and the darkness. They were signs of seasons, days, and years. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Again darkness and daylight appear to constitute a day described as "evening and morning," a literal 24-hour day.

Furthermore the heavenly bodies measure the "days." Surely these are 24-hour days, since they are distinguished from "years." Surely then the fourth "day" is the kind of "day" that those heavenly bodies measure. If the fourth "day" was hundreds of millions of years long, then how long were the years and the seasons? But if the fourth day was a literal day, why not take all the days to be the same?

The clear intent of Scripture is violated by all attempts to find long ages in creation.