|
One of the most problematic
areas in reconciling science and the biblical Christian faith is
in reconciling scientific findings about the age of the universe
with the Genesis accounts of the creation process. Science
tells us the universe is about 14 billion years old, while the
first chapter of Genesis tells us it was created in seven days,
with subsequent events recorded in the Bible giving us an
approximate age of about 10,000 years (presuming the "days" in
Genesis mean twenty-four hour periods). That is indeed quite a
difference! Yet, it must be noted up front that this essay is
neither an attack on evolutionary theory nor a defense of it.
In fact, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory at all!
This is because evolutionary theory does not give us the age of
the universe, it merely presupposes it. Rather, what this essay
has to do with is examining the age of the universe as
determined by physical measurements of the universe, and
examining the biblical accounts of the creation of the universe,
and seeing whether or not they can be harmonized. As has been
said elsewhere (see the
Thomas Project), this project is not about evolution
versus creation; it is about science and biblical Christianity.
When is a 'Day' not a
"Day?"
So, where do we begin with
reconciling a difference of 14 billion years in the calculated
age of the universe? We begin with the Book of Genesis in the
Bible. As mentioned previously, the first chapter of Genesis
describes God creating the universe in seven "days," which would
seem to mount an insuperable problem right off. When one looks
at languages in general, however, the word "day" in normal usage
not only means a specific twenty-four hour period of, say,
sunrise to sunrise, but it also routinely means a long period of
time of non-specific duration. For example, in Modern English
we can say "In my day, there were record albums instead of
CD's." In this example, even though the word 'day' is being
used, no reasonable person understands, much less demands, that
it refer to a twenty-four hour period. Rather, what it means or
refers to is a long period of time of non-specific duration.
This is equally true of
classical Hebrew, which is the original language of Genesis and
the vast majority of the Old Testament. There are many examples
of this use of "day" where it is referring to a long period of
time of non-specific duration. Several are in the books 1 and 2
Chronicles, where the writer of these inspired texts a number of
times describes a state of affairs as being "to this day,"
referring not to twenty-four hour periods, but instead to the
period of time associated with the writer's life.1
It is thus linguistically acceptable, for this and other
reasons, that the "day" references in Genesis can be understood
as describing particular periods of time of non-specific
duration associated with the creation process.
1
Please refer to 1 Chronicles 4:41, 4:43; 2 Chronicles 5:9, 21:10
for examples. There are many others.
But why should we not
immediately take these references to "days" as simple references
to twenty-four hour periods, even though the linguistic option
to understand them otherwise exists? The first answer could be
that the passages refer to "the evening and the morning, the
first day," and thus must refer to a twenty-four hour
period. But, as we shall see below, that assertion is not
necessarily true. But is it only because of scientific findings
on the age of the universe that we should even question this
interpretation? The answer to that question is "No." When one
looks at the first chapter of Genesis, and places the use of
"day" in its context of the very beginning of all created
things, one has to immediately notice that in the first "day"
nothing yet existed which was even remotely familiar to what we
look out the window and see right now. Genesis 1:1-2 reports
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The
earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface
of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface
of the waters"
In the first "day," God
created the "heavens" and the "earth," and with them the "deep"
and the "waters," but whatever these words denote they were
totally and completely unlike that which we know today by those
words. That it was not the starry skies, the solid ground, the
oceans, and the clouds can be demonstrated in how Genesis 1:3-5
reports
"Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 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 evening and there was morning, one
day."
If one is looking for
conventional points of reference, they simply do not yet exist
at the end of the first "day!" There cannot be a literal
"evening...and morning" because no sun, moon or stars are yet in
existence. In fact, these heavenly bodies were not created
until the fourth "day," as is reported in Genesis 1:14-19.
Further, in those passages
God specifically explains the sun, moon, and stars were created
"to separate the day from the night," and "for signs and for
seasons and for days and for years." Therefore, the marking of
the passage of time as we understand it, in terms of hours,
days, months, years, and seasons, may very well not even have
been possible until that fourth "day."
Likewise, from these
passages it is incontestable that the separation of night and
day referred to in the first "day" is not necessarily the
same as the separation of night and day referred to in the
fourth "day." It may be so, but it does not have
to be so. On the first day God created light and separated it
from darkness, while little else existed. On the fourth day he
introduced the celestial bodies, including the sun and the moon,
to help mark or measure time, after a number of things were
already in existence.
So we see that the text
itself raises the question of whether or not taking the word
"day" to be a twenty-four hour period is the best understanding
of the passage, without even taking into consideration the
findings of science. This is an interpretive question that
stands well on its own!
In fact, if the "day" in
Genesis chapter one can only refer to a twenty-four hour period
for the sake of literalism, one must then acknowledge
that the opening chapter of the Bible is open to severe logical
difficulties. This is because there logically cannot be a
literal "evening" and a literal "morning" while
creation itself is still "formless and void," or consisting only
of light, darkness, water, and earth. Literally, evening
and morning require at least a sun and an earth.
But as we have seen, the sun and the moon and the stars were not
created until the fourth "day." So a dogmatic literalism
immediately plunges the reader into contradiction. Since such
contradictions are not consistent with the character of God, the
dogmatic literalism cannot be correct. This alone should be
sufficient to indicate that the twenty-four hour measurement of
the rotation of the earth is not necessarily the intent
of writer in those passages, and that an understanding of
"indefinite period of long duration," rather than twenty-four
hours, is very plausible.
This is not to say that we
support only one view or the other, it is simply to say
that a strictly literal and highly dogmatic understanding of the
text runs into deep trouble, but does so unnecessarily.
Could God have made the world in seven literal twenty-four
hours days? Of course! Did God make the world in seven
literal twenty-four hour days? Perhaps, perhaps not. The text
itself does not demand it, and in fact readily allows for the
alternate understanding that the "days" were indefinite periods
of long duration. In other words, it could reasonably be
either, though not on the basis of strict, dogmatic literalism.
So these opening verses of
Genesis can be readily and reasonably understood to explain that
the conventional twenty-four hour day as we know it did not come
into existence until the fourth "day" of the creation process.
It is important to note that this is so, even though the same
Hebrew word is being used for "day" throughout the first chapter
of Genesis. It is still logically possible that a twenty-four
hour day is being referenced throughout Genesis chapter one,
given God's creative power and authority. But understanding
"day" in this passage to mean long periods of unspecified
duration itself does not deny the relevance of the twenty-four
hour day either in later uses in Genesis, or elsewhere in the
Bible. It still allows for God's use of the conventional seven
twenty-four hour days (i.e. a "week") to remind humanity of his
creative acts in these seven original phases, without
sacrificing logical clarity, biblical authority, or divine
capacity.
New Testament Uses of
"Day"
But some may object that
there is no precedent in the Bible for understanding "day" in
this way, that it may be logically supportable, but not
biblically supportable. Well, let's take a look. The Bible
teaches that God created the world in seven "days," and the
seventh "day" was the "day" he rested. It is interesting to
note that the author of the New Testament book called Hebrews
describes the seventh day of creation in which God rested as a
day of rest continuing right up to this day, which that
writer calls "today."1 Whatever else can be said,
this divinely inspired writer did not have a problem with
considering God's rest on the seventh "day" of creation to be
lasting more than twenty-four hours. According to the writer of
Hebrews, in fact, that seventh "day" of God's rest has lasted
from the end of the creation process described in Genesis 1 to
this very moment, which is definitely a long period time of
undefined duration!
1
Please refer to Hebrews 4:3-10
And that is the point we are
trying to make. It does not deny the reliability of the Bible
to admit to areas of "non-literal" interpretation, especially
those areas which later writers of the Bible themselves took
non-literally. The Bible would be unreliable if it were
illogical, or historically invalid, but it is not unreliable
because certain parts of it are not taken with dogmatic
literalism with regard to events at the very beginning of the
existence of the universe!
Another instructive use of
"day" by New Testament writers is found in the book called 2
Peter, which was written by the Apostle Peter. In it, he makes
the remarkable statement that, with regard to the passing of
time, for God "one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand
years like one day"1 However one chooses to
interpret this passage, it is inescapable that the Bible itself
models here the truth that a "day" to God is not necessarily
what a "day" is to us. While we are not at all suggesting that
this passage be applied to mean that creation actually took
seven thousand years, it must nonetheless be acknowledged that
such an understanding is not only biblically possible, but
biblically supportable (though not well-founded, in our
opinion). What is incontestable about the Apostle Peter's use
of the word 'day' here, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is
that when God speaks of "days," He Himself is not limited to
referring to twenty-four hour periods, much as some might want
it to be otherwise.
1
Please refer to 2 Peter 3:8.
Looking at more New
Testament uses of "day" further helps to illuminate this issue.
Let's examine how Jesus Christ himself used and understood such
language. On one occasion when Jesus describes his impending
death and resurrection, he does so by saying
"for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly
of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man [Jesus himself] be
three days and three nights in the belly of the earth."
1
Jesus was buried on Friday
just before sunset (we know this because his burial was
incomplete because of the approach of the Sabbath (sunset),2
and he rose from the dead very early on Sunday morning.3
This means he was literally "in the earth" for the last
third of Friday (say about eight hours), all day Saturday
(twenty-four hours), and only about one quarter of Sunday (say
about six hours). Added together, Jesus was literally in the
belly of the earth for 1.6 days (approximately thirty-eight
hours), which is a far cry from the three days (seventy-two
hours) required of taking his prediction as meaning three
twenty-four hour periods. Likewise, Jesus was "in the belly of
the earth" for only two nights (Friday night and Saturday
night), which is a full night off from the three nights required
by a dogmatically literal understanding of his prediction.
1
Please refer to Matthew 12:40.
2
Please refer to Mark 15:37-47.
3
Please refer to Mark 16:2.
Jesus had predicted "three
days and three nights" for the duration of his time in burial,
so either he did not intend a strictly literal
interpretation of Jonah's three days and three nights, or Jesus
was mistaken, or he lied. In other words, to require that
dogmatic literalism is always correct regarding the meaning of
the word "day" in the Bible is to require a Jesus, as God's Son,
who either cannot count, cannot tell time, or cannot be
trusted. We do not accept this as a requirement.
We understand Jesus as
teaching and modeling here that his words describing his
"days" in the earth are not to be understood as three
literal twenty-four hour periods. We also understand Jesus as
teaching and modeling here that the Old Testament Hebrew use of
the word "day" is not to be necessarily to be dogmatically
literally understood as only meaning strict twenty-four hour
periods. Therefore, to those who demand strict literalism in
understanding Old Testament "days," we submit that Jesus Christ
himself did not always understand the Old Testament with that
degree of strict literalism, and indeed was not particularly
concerned with doing so with regard to interpreting Jonah. In
fact, Jesus Christ specifically taught that "three days and
three nights" as reported in the Hebrew of the Old
Testament did not have to be taken with dogmatic literalism as
an exact period of 72 hours. In reality, such strict literalism
is more a product of today's cultural mindset rather than that
mindset represented by the thoughts and records of the Ancient
Near East.
"Days" in Prophecy
Finally, there are those who
insist on a literal understanding of days and weeks for the
creation accounts in the first chapters of Genesis who then,
oddly enough, insist that literal understandings of days and
weeks are not acceptable for end-time prophecies of Scripture
such as those found in Daniel and applied in Revelation. It is
consistently taught that the days and weeks mentioned in those
prophecies of the end times refer not to twenty-four hour
periods, but to years, centuries, or even longer periods of
time. What then is the defense for demanding that those
time periods not be taken literally?
Mostly, it is that the
context is that of apocalyptic writing. Such writing includes
descriptions of future events that are in themselves somewhat
obscure when viewed from our present perspective, that are only
partially comprehensible in the present, and that are frankly
mysterious in many respects. Thus, ironically, it is accepted
by those who advocate seven literal days of creation that such
apocalyptic writings do reliably depict coming events, as
long as the references to days and weeks are not taken
literally. Put another way, those who demand that there must be
literal understanding of biblical references to days and weeks
in Genesis find themselves then in the awkward position of
demanding that apocalyptic writing can only be understood
correctly without taking literal understandings of
biblical references to days and weeks.
Once again, requiring a
literal and dogmatic understanding of the biblical usage of
'day' as only meaning a twenty-four hour period results in a
number of problems, this time not only logical ones, but also
problems of exposure to charges of hypocrisy. The question
really becomes, "When is a 'day' not a "day?" The answer, of
course, is that it depends upon context. Context must
drive interpretation, even as is evident in the case of
apocalyptic prophecy.
Comparing
the Contexts of Creation and Prophecy
This brings up an
interesting point, however, one well worth examining. Let us
compare the contexts of the subjects of the creation accounts
and the contexts of the subjects of apocalyptic writing in the
Bible. In the opening chapters of Genesis, the context is the
creation of the entire universe as we know it. Do not just pass
by that -- ponder it, and consider it.
In the opening chapters of Genesis, the context
is the creation of the entire universe as we know it.
It is a summary of how God
brought about the vastness and complexity of everything we can
see and experience around us and in us, including such
fundamentals as time, space, matter, energy, gravity, laws of
nature, spiritual realms, spiritual realities, spiritual beings,
and so on. Indeed, if there is anything whose actual mechanics
and processes are murky by virtue of magnificence, it is the
actual events of creation. If there is anything whose
descriptions underscore the limitations of our human capacity to
understand, it is God's revelation of the creation process. And
does this sound familiar? Its writings are descriptions of
events that are in themselves somewhat obscure when viewed from
our present perspective, that are only partially comprehensible
in the present, and that are frankly mysterious in many
respects. These contexts are just like those in apocalyptic
writing, especially when one considers that apocalyptic writing
in the Bible frequently includes describing God creating
a new heaven and a new earth.1
1
For examples, please see Isaiah 65:17 and
Revelation 21:1.
The point is this: the
subject matter of both the creation accounts and apocalyptic
writing can be seen as similar enough in type to ask whether or
not one should handle the time intervals mentioned within them
with similar interpretive understandings. In other words, if
interpreting days and weeks non-literally is deemed acceptable
for apocalyptic writing (actually, required for it), why then
should it not also be considered acceptable for the creation
accounts in Genesis? It certainly appears that both can be
viewed in the same way and with the same integrity, and without
compromising the authority of the Bible or slighting its
ultimate Author.
When viewed this way, then,
the Genesis accounts in chapters one and two can be reasonably
and biblically accepted to reliably depict events in time
without placing literal demands on the time periods that are
referenced in them. Another way of saying it is that in the
Genesis accounts we see depictions of the climactic past and in
the apocalyptic accounts we see depictions of the climactic
future.
In reality, human words,
human wisdom, and human understanding fall far short in reaching
for the awesome majesty and the terrifying power revealed in the
all-consuming reality of the God who does these things, and
reveals them to us. Indeed, the essential interpretation of the
opening chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis is that God
created all things. All else is subordinate to that revelation,
including the requirement to only interpret the seven days as
seven literal twenty-four hour periods.
Too Much of a Stretch?
Even with all this, one
might still object that there is an astronomical difference
between a duration of thousands of years and a duration of 14
billion years, and they would be right. We will not attempt to
answer this directly, yet it has been well pointed out that God
did not have to create a baby universe, but could easily have
created a mature universe. For example, if a physician had
examined Adam the day after his creation, he or she would have
likely concluded that Adam was a man of about thirty years old,
and not a man of just one day old. Likewise, a young universe
can still appear to be much older on such a scale as described
earlier, by virtue of the mechanisms and processes operating in
the universe that give it the appearance of great age, and based
on the presuppositions used in interpreting those mechanisms and
processes.
In any event, given the
fantastically incomprehensible processes that occurred at the
beginning, whether viewed as the moment of the Big Bang or as
the event where God spoke the universe into existence, such a
difference in time may simply lack meaning. One must remember
that the Bible is a set of books specifically designed to call
out faith in the reader, whether that reader is illiterate and
uneducated, or possessing a Ph.D in astrophysics. The primary
points to be taken from the Genesis accounts with respect to the
age of the universe is that God created the universe, and that
He created it in stages.
Summary
In conclusion, then, we
believe that a very strong case can be made linguistically,
logically, and with an eye to consistency in biblical
interpretation, that the seven days of creation described in
Genesis do not have to be understood as seven literal
twenty-four hour days. We further believe that they can indeed
represent seven distinct periods of time, each of undefined
duration, which in and of themselves could account for the
geologically-determined age of the earth or the
cosmologically-determined age of the universe.
It is well worth remembering
that Christian salvation does not depend on taking the seven
days of creation either as seven twenty-four hour periods, or as
seven periods of indefinite duration. But, Christian salvation
does depend on accepting the reliability of the truths presented
by the Bible regarding the relationships between God, humanity,
and the rest of the created order. And we believe that we have
sufficiently defended those truths and their reliability, while
still allowing for either seven twenty-four hour periods of
creation or seven periods of indefinite duration, all with
rational integrity and attention to the evidence. In other
words, we find that the ages of the universe as described by
science and as described by the Bible are duly reconcilable,
without compromising truth.
Feedback/Comments/Questions |
