Did God create the world in six literal 24-hour days? Our answer is, yes! Pete Wilbanks, Professor of Christian Studies, supports the answer from an analysis of the Biblical text. Ronald Marks, Professor of Chemistry, then answers from the field of science.
There are three examples that support a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.
First, the original audience would have understood Moses’ words exactly as Moses wrote them. Operating on the classical interpretational principle, that an original author was writing to communicate meaning to an original intended audience, leads to this conclusion. In Genesis 1, Moses used the Hebrew word yom, which means “day.” Also, Moses clarified that on days 1 thorough 6, a yom was an evening and a morning; he then used the cardinal number 1 for day 1, and the ordinal numbers for days 2-7 (2nd through 7th) — thus indicating sequence. Furthermore, in Exodus, Moses stated that creation occurred in six days (Exodus 20:11 and 31:17).
Some will respond by saying that Moses was using “phenomenological” or “accommodational” language — that is, language that could be understood by the original audience given their level of scientific knowledge. Moses could have written that the Lord created the earth over thousands and thousands of years. The Hebrew language contains large numbers. For example, the Hebrew word ’elef means 1,000, and the word rebabah means 10,000 or more. Rebabah occurs approximately 19 times in the Old Testament. A literal translation of Genesis 24:60 would read “to 1,000s of 10,000s” (l’elfay rebabah) . Moses could easily have said that God created over “1,000s of 10,000 years,” but instead he wrote that the Lord created the earth in six days.
Second, the word yom in Genesis 2:4 does not refer to a 24-hour period; however, this general use of the word yom in Genesis 2:4 does not negate the fact that the meaning of the word in Genesis 1 is restricted by the use of evening, morning, and cardinal/ordinal numbers. Moses placed no such restrictions on his use of yom in Genesis 2:4; therefore, the original audience could easily have understood the 24-hour meaning of yom in Genesis 1 while understanding the general use of yom in Genesis 2:4.
Third, if one asserts the “accommodational language” position, then one has to agree that a correct understanding of the creation account could never have happened until the scientific revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Also, this position must assert that the ultimate interpretation of the creation account comes from a field of study (namely geology) that is outside of sacred Scripture and whose conclusions are continually changing. For example, some geologists are beginning to concede that some geological evidence points to catastrophic formation (like a global flood), rather than millions of years of slow and gradual formation. That evidence is already present, but many old-earth scientists scoff at the idea.
Scientists, like anyone who looks at the truth of Genesis and the evidence for the creation, sees through the lens of their own biases. They may choose the lens of 4.6 billion years, and use that lens to evaluate evidence. Or, use the lens of 6,000 years to evaluate the evidence. These two different lenses do not produce different evidence. Each lens simply changes the way the evidence is “seen.” The better lens is the one that properly represents the evidence.
Modern science chooses a lens that assumes the universe is 13 billion years old, and the earth is 5 billion years old. This modern-science lens also removes supernatural existence thus blocking it from being able to acknowledge that God exists as part of the science they are doing.
What kind of lens would good science use? Paul, in writing to the church at Rome, states that God has revealed Himself clearly and precisely through His creation. Since this is true, we must choose a lens that doesn’t keep us from seeing what God has revealed. We need a lens that incorporates an ability to see God’s self-revelation in His creation. This lens acknowledges that the supernatural exists. If the lens doesn’t acknowledge that God exists, the lens changes what the evidence is clearly showing.
A good lens also prioritizes knowledge. Since God exists, whatever He reveals about Himself or about what He has done has greater authority in our understanding of truth. This good lens will place human ideas below God’s revelation in priority of understanding.
This true lens uses the standard of God’s Word as the test to determine if what we are seeing from science is true or false. When a scientist wants to determine the heat contained in an object, they use a thermometer. This thermometer is an “external standard.” It’s not part of the water. The scientist knows if the thermometer is accurate by using an “external source” to check that thermometer.
When a builder wants to determine if a wall is “plumb” he gets an external source and an external expert. He uses a “level” or plumbing device. Good science always checks with the external standard to assess if what the scientist observes and concludes is in agreement with what is true.
Modern science has selected a lens. The modern science lens removes the supernatural, and places the external source of what is true inside the process of science itself. That is why when science finds soft tissue in dinosaurs, like the soft tissues in the Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, they aren’t able to see the very clear evidence that these fossils must be less than 6,000 years old.
— Pete Wilbanks is professor of Christian studies and Ronald C. Marks is professor of chemistry at North Greenville University.