Previous Lecture | Next Lecture
-
Definition:
- Holds that the “days” of Genesis 1 represent long, indeterminate periods of time or ages, not literal 24-hour periods.
- Views creation as occurring over six consecutive ages.
- This view is consistent with an old Earth and the potential for life to develop over millions of years, depending on the length assigned to the “ages.”
-
Historical Proponents:
- Historically held by some church fathers and commentators (examples mentioned in discussion: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Augustine, Basil of Caesarea).
- Contemporary proponents include Gleason Archer and Hugh Ross.
-
Assessment of the Day-Age Interpretation:
- Plausibility: It is a possible interpretation.
- Textual Support: There are suggestions in the text that the days are not necessarily 24-hour periods (e.g., description of vegetation growth on Day 3, length of Day 6, ongoing Day 7).
- Critique of the “Ages” Concept:
- The idea that the text intends the days to mean six consecutive, long ages (especially of equal duration) is likely being read into the text, not read out of it. The text uses the language of days, which might be used figuratively.
- Lack of Fit with Modern Science (Motivations): Insofar as the view is motivated by concordism (reconciling with science), it often struggles to align with the scientific consensus on the order and timing of life’s appearance (e.g., land animals appearing before birds in Genesis).
- Critique of Overlapping Ages (Proposed Solution): Some suggest overlapping ages to resolve conflicts with scientific order, but this hypothesis is a contrivance with no textual support and contradicts the “evening and morning” structure suggesting sequential periods.
-
Conclusion: The Day-Age view is a possibility, but apart from the reasons suggesting the days aren’t literal 24-hour periods, there is limited textual support for interpreting them specifically as six consecutive “ages” or long periods, especially if the motivation is primarily scientific reconciliation.
Discussion
- Q1: Can you clarify the difference between the Day-Gap and Day-Age interpretations? A: The Day-Gap view holds that the days are literal 24-hour days separated by long gaps of time. The Day-Age view holds that the “days” themselves are the long periods of time or ages, which are consecutive.
- Q2: What are some historical proponents of the Day-Age view? A: Historical figures mentioned as possibly holding or leaning toward non-literal/Day-Age type views include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Augustine, and Basil of Caesarea. More contemporary proponents include Gleason Archer and Hugh Ross.
- Q3: Does the absence of the definite article “the” on the first five “days” in Hebrew grammar support the idea that they are extended periods, as some (like John Lennox, possibly in a Day-Gap view) suggest? A: Some interpreters note this grammatical detail and suggest it could allow for the first five days to be less defined or more extended than the last two, which use the definite article. This is a point cited by some to support non-literal durations, though it doesn’t mandate the Day-Age view specifically.
- Q4: Hugh Ross supports the Day-Age view using arguments based on: (1) Day 6 being too long for 24 hours (naming animals, etc.); (2) Day 7 being continuous (no “evening and morning”); and (3) the Hebrew word “yom” meaning a long period. What’s the assessment of these? A: Arguments (1) and (2) (length of Day 6, nature of Day 7) are recognized as strong textual reasons against a strict literal 24-hour interpretation for all days. However, argument (3) – that “yom” itself means a long age in this context – is debated. Dr. Craig is skeptical that the word “yom” in Genesis 1 means “age,” but rather that the 24-hour unit it describes might be used metaphorically for something else.
- Q5: Regarding Day 3 (Earth bringing forth vegetation): Could God have created the plants in maturity instantaneously, rather than implying a growth process? God created Adam and Eve as mature adults. A: While God could create things in maturity (like Adam and Eve), the specific language used for Day 3 (“Let the earth bring forth vegetation,” “the earth brought forth…”) suggests a process originating from the ground, which is less likely to be instantaneous like the creation of Adam and Eve or light. This specific phrasing supports interpreting Day 3 as a period longer than 24 hours.
- Q6: The phrase “yielding seed” in Gen 1.11 / Gen 1.12 (Hebrew: dasha, meaning causing or making seeds, sprouts/new growth) implies the plants were already producing. Doesn’t this support instantaneous maturity? A: While the plants were to be seed-yielding types, the language “Let the earth sprout… and the earth produced” (using forms of the same Hebrew word used for Earth producing land animals on Day 6) still indicates a process of growth from the earth, rather than instantaneous creation of fully mature, fruit/seed bearing plants disconnected from the ground.