"THE CASE FOR CREATION"

The Case For Six Literal 24 Hour Days

INTRODUCTION
  1. I believe it fair to say that any casual, first-time reader of Genesis...
    1. Will conclude it teaches all things were created in six days
    2. That those days were six literal 24 hour days
  2. The popularity of the theory of evolution has led many to...
    1. Discount any literal interpretation of Genesis 1
    2. Seek biblical support for a less literal understanding of the days of creation

[On the other hand, there are good reasons to take the Genesis account at face value, for both biblical and scientific reasons. From a biblical perspective, let's consider some...]

  1. ARGUMENTS FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS
    1. HEBREW LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES...
      1. Lexicographers consistently cite the enumerated days of Genesis 1:1-31 as examples of a solar day - Robert V. McCabe, A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week
      2. The following examples were offered by McCabe (plus one that I found):
        1. The Dictionary Of Classical Hebrew - Clines
        2. A Hebrew And English Lexicon Of The Old Testament - Brown, Driver, Briggs
        3. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament - Baumgartner, Stamm
        4. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament - Saeboe
        5. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis - Verhoef
        6. Dictionary Of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) - Swanson
        -- These lexicons and dictionaries cite the days of creation as literal 24 hour days
    2. SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS FOR SINGULAR USE OF "DAY"...
      1. "When yôm is used in the singular and is not part of a compound grammatical construction, it is consistently used in reference to a literal day of 24 hours or to the daytime portion of a literal day." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. "The extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always found in connection with prepositions, prepositional phrases with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the like. In other words, extended, non-literal meanings of this Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual connections which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended. If such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm does not have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its normal meaning of a literal day of 24-hours." - Gerhard F. Hasel, as quoted by McCabe
      -- The semantic use of the singular suggests a literal day
    3. NUMERIC QUALIFIERS AND "DAY"...
      1. "When each day of the creation week is summarized, the singular 'day' is modified by a numerical qualifier, 'first day' (v.5), 'second day (v.8), and sequentially continuing to the 'sixth day' (vv. 13, 19, 24, 31)." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. "When yôm is qualified by a number, it is almost invariably used in a literal sense." - ibid.
      -- The numeric qualifiers suggest a literal day
    4. SEQUENTIAL NUMBERING AND "DAY"...
      1. "The sequential use of the ordinal numbers "first" through "sixth" for each day of the creation week, followed by the "seventh day" indicates a chronological progression of days." - E. J. Young, as referenced by McCabe
      2. "What seems of significance is the sequential emphasis of the numerals 1-7 without any break or temporal interruption. This seven-day schema, the schema of the week of six workdays followed by 'the seventh day' as rest day, interlinks the creation "days" as normal days in a consecutive and non- interrupted sequence." - Hasel, ibid.
      -- The sequential numbering suggests a literal day
    5. EVENING AND MORNING AS QUALIFIERS OF "DAY"...
      1. "So the evening and the morning were the ____ day." - Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31
      2. "Whether 'evening' and 'morning' are used together in a context with yôm (19 times beyond the 6 uses in Genesis 1) or they are used without yôm (38 times), they are used consistently in reference to literal days." - McCabe, ibid.
      -- The use of morning and evening suggest a literal day
    6. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND "DAY"...
      1. Problem one
        1. Fruit trees and seed-bearing plants were created on the third day - Gen 1:11-12
        2. Much vegetation requires insects for pollination
        3. Insects were not created until the sixth day - Gen 1:24-25
        4. It would be impossible for many plants to survive long periods without insects
        5. "A symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is coordinate with literal and successive days in Genesis 1, but this would not be the case if the days refer to extended periods." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. Problem two
        1. "If days are figurative and if there is any consistency in interpretation, then there must extended periods of light corresponding to 'morning' and of darkness corresponding to evening.'" - ibid.
        2. "This would guarantee that both plant and animal life would be unable to survive." - ibid.
        -- The sequence of events suggest a literal day
    7. SCRIPTURAL CONSIDERATIONS...
      1. In the Old Testament
        1. "There are two passages, dealing with regulations for the observance of the Sabbath that cogently reinforce a literal interpretation of the days in the creation week." - McCabe, ibid.
        2. "These passages are Exo 20:8-11 and Exo 31:14-17." - ibid.
        3. "According to these two texts, the references to the creation week are not analogous - man's rest is not simply like God's rest on the seventh day - instead, man is to imitate the divine Exemplar. Since God worked for six days and rested on the seventh, the nation of Israel must follow his example." - ibid.
      2. In the New Testament
        1. The origin of man and marriage was "from the beginning of the creation"
          1. Man was created male and female "from the beginning" - Mk 10:6; cf. Gen 1:27
          2. The institution of marriage soon followed - Mk 10:7-8; cf. Gen 2:20-24
          3. If it was ages after "the beginning of creation", this would not be true
        2. Death and corruption was a consequence of Adam's sin
          1. By man came death, in Adam all die - Gen 2:17; cf. 1Co 15:21-22
          2. By man's sin, the earth was cursed - Gen 3:17; cf. Ro 8:20-22
          3. If the "days" of Genesis 1 are long periods of time, death and corruption occurred long before Adam
          -- The scriptural considerations suggest the Genesis account should be taken literally

        [Such are some of the Biblical or scriptural reasons for taking Genesis 1-2 at face value. It is certainly not an exhaustive treatment of the subject. For more information, including resources that subscribe to a literal view of the days of Creation from a scientific perspective, here are some...]

    8. RESOURCES FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS
      1. FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE...
        1. A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week - Robert V. McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
        2. Creation Days And Orthodox Jewish Tradition - Paul-James Griffiths
        3. A Summary Of Evidence For Literal 24-Hr Creation Days In Genesis 1 - Andrew S. Kulikovsky
        4. The Days Of Creation: A Semantic Approach - James Stambaugh
        5. Studies About The Days Of Genesis 1 - David E. Pratte
        -- These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour days is biblically sound
      2. FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE...
        1. Institute For Creation Research - Henry M. Morris, Duane Gish
        2. Answers In Genesis - Ken Ham
        3. The Creation Research Society
        4. Creation Ministries International
        5. Bible.ca's Scientific Evidence For Creation - Don Patton, Steve Rudd
        6. A List Of Over 175 Scientists - who accept the biblical account of Creation
        -- These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour days is scientifically sound
CONCLUSION
  1. Before rejecting that God created all things in six literal 24 hours days, one should ask...
    1. Is it consistent in regards to Hebrew syntax as found in the Bible?
    2. Is it in harmony with the rest of the biblical record?
    -- For those who accept the Bible as the Word of God, such concerns should be paramount
  2. One should also ask...
    1. Must we force our view of Genesis 1 to fit popular evolutionary thinking?
    2. Is it scientifically necessary to do so?
    -- Has the theory of evolution been proven as it relates to origins?

To help answer the latter questions, our next two lessons will focus on problems with the theory of evolution...