In Part 1 of this blog we introduced the subject of “time” and noted how the interpretation of the ancient Hebrew term “yom” has led to heated arguments and debates within the Church. The term “yom” literally means “a period of time,” and like many other Hebrew nouns, the interpretation is governed by the local context. In Genesis 1 and 2, yom is commonly translated as either a 12-hour or 24-hour period.

The context for yom in Genesis 1 and 2 is driven by the Hebrew terms ereb and boqer, or evening and morning, respectively. However, as we observed in Part 1, even these two Hebrew words have multiple meanings. The term ereb can be translated sunset, night, ending of day, and chaos (from Hebrew root of ereb). Likewise, boqer can be translated sunrise, coming of light, beginning of day, break of day, dawning, and order (from Hebrew root word of boqer).

Consequently, we concluded Part 1 by acknowledging that two interpretations are possible for Genesis 1:5 (Day 1) and for each of the subsequent Days 2-6. The two interpretations of Genesis 1:5 follow:

• And there was evening and there was morning, one day (NASV); or
• And there was an ending and there was a beginning of one period of time.

Again, our intent in Parts 1 and 2 is not to prove the validity of one translation or the other, but simply to illustrate that two possible translations exist. Our specific goal in Part 2 is to provide other examples of yom from the Old Testament that reflect long periods of time. We conclude by examining how the interpretations of “time” have progressed throughout Church history.

“Time” in Scripture: As Expressed Throughout the Old Testament

Once we move beyond Genesis 1, yom is also associated with time periods that exceed the 24-hour period discussed above. Note that only the term yom carries the meaning of a long period of time in ancient Hebrew (pre-Mosaic and pre-Davidic).1-4 Several examples of these extended time periods are listed below:

A period of 6 “days” (Genesis 2:4)

“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (yom) that the Lord God made earth and heaven (the entire 6-day creation period – JRC).”

Wheat Harvest Period (Genesis 30:14)

“Now in the day(s) (yom) of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah….”

40-Year Period (Joshua 24:7)

“But when they cried out to the Lord, He put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them and covered them; and your own eyes saw what I did in Egypt. And you lived in the wilderness for a long time (yom).

Uncertain (Daniel 4:32; NASV)

“…and you (Nebuchadnezzar) will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time (yoms) will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler…”

Notice that the translators of Daniel used the literal definition of yom—a “period of time.” Why would they do this? There is no context provided in the narrative to establish what the term yom signifies. It is unclear if Nebachadnezzar enjoyed his diet of grass for seven weeks, seven months, or seven years.

Again, these examples do not prove that the word yom in Genesis 1 refers to either a 24-hour period or a longer period of time. They simply demonstrate that yom can and does refer to extended time periods as referenced throughout the Old Testament.

“Time” in Scripture: Historical Views and Origin of the Controversy

In this final section of “Time in Scripture” we examine the early historical views of the Genesis 1 days and the source of the young earth/old earth controversy within the Church. We begin by providing the views of the “Apostolic Fathers” regarding the days of Genesis 1. These men were early scholars and teachers from the 1st-4th centuries. They were not associated with Jesus as His apostles but lived close enough to Jesus’ time to understand the culture and the language of His day. Their quotes and views are listed below in chronological order and follow the format presented by Ross⁵:

First Century: Philo (20 BC – AD 45)

Believed God created everything instantaneously; the six days were figurative, representing order and completeness.

“It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a space of time at all… correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world…”⁶

Second Century (Justin Martyr, AD 100-166) and Irenaeus (AD 130-200) –

Both believed that each creation day was 1000 years long on the basis of 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4.

“…He (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit… for since “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,” he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them.”⁷

Third Century Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-220) and Origen (AD 185-254)

(Clement of Alexandria) Also believed the creation days were not literal 24-hr periods, but communicated order and priority (similar to Philo; JRC). Creation could not take place in time since…

“…time was born along with things which exist…”⁸

(Origen) Claimed time as we know it did not exist until the fourth day (after sun, moon, and stars). Also claimed seventh day could not be 24 hours but represents time between creation of world and its extinction…

“Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first, and the second, and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun, moon, and stars?”⁹

Fourth Century Augustine (AD 354-430) –

Believed each creation day was figurative. Also believed that the seventh day was an epoch extending onward into eternity.

“As for these ‘days’, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think – let alone explain in words – what they mean.”¹⁰

Fifth Century Through Middle Ages

Church scholars maintained a tolerant attitude toward differing views of the Genesis 1 creation days. No extensive debates or criticisms are noted.²

1611

Publication of the King James Bible. The translators chose literal sunrise and sunset for the mornings and evenings, and 24-hour periods for each Genesis 1 day.²

1642

John Lightfoot, Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor, published his calculation for the creation date of the universe based on Old Testament genealogies, assuming 24-hour days. His derived date was September 17, 3928 B.C.²

1650

James Ussher, Anglican archbishop of Ireland, corrected Lightfoot’s date to October 3, 4004 B.C.²

1700 Onward

Ussher’s dates were incorporated into the King James Bible within the headings and margin notes. Many readers had little or no way to distinguish the dates and headings from the original Hebrew text, and the dates became widely accepted within the Church. (I remember seeing my grandmother’s family bible as a youth. Her version, probably from the late 1800’s, also had the dates included within the margin notes.)²

1780-1790

Scientists began to recognize consistent ordering in layered sediments, and that fossils could be used to “sort” the strata over broad regions.²
Many were Christians – measuring/observing natural data (by “looking at” God’s creation, Romans 1)

1800-1850

Successive changes were recognized in the fossil record and related to specific strata on a regional basis. Calculations of sediment deposition rates suggested the earth (and animal life) had existed for at least 250 million years.

Many of the scientists remained devout Christians, but the data led them to an old earth view. . . They were not “looking” to prove an “old earth” view. Great disputes erupted between these early scientists and various church leaders.²

1857

Philip Gosse (British biologist and preacher) publishes ‘Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot’. His theory proposed that God created an aged earth in six literal days… as an attempt to reconcile the geological record with Genesis 1 and its creation dates.²

1859

Darwin proposes his theory of evolution in ‘Origin of the Species’ to explain diversity of life. He postulated that all life forms evolved through natural selection. Many scientists strongly objected, but the theory was quickly adopted by the European scientific community.²

At this point, a massive wedge was driven between the Church and the naturalistic scientists.

1860 Onward

The division between Church and science has continued to widen—a gulf now separates theology from the scientific disciplines. Many modern-day churches are strongly divided over the issue of “time.” Ironically, it is science itself that may rebuild the bridge as scientists begin to recognize God through His creation.

*      *      *

This completes the second leg of our three-legged stool of truth – Scriptural truth. Hopefully, you now recognize that the “days” of Genesis 1 and 2 can be interpreted legitimately and yet differently from the 24-hour days suggested by the 1619 King James translation. The Hebrew term yom clearly reflects much longer time periods in some Old Testament. And, early Church scholars saw no reason to insist upon 24-hour periods in their interpretations. The “days” of Genesis 1 and 2 can be translated through two valid, but different, interpretations.

Parts 1 and 2 of this blog have been long on Scripture and short on science. That trend will reverse as we move into Parts 3 and 4. Our stool’s third leg of truth will consider “time” as expressed through God’s creation, including physics, earth science, and astronomy. And one final point as a reminder—there should be no contradictions between the three legs. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

¹Ross, Hugh (2001); The Genesis Question (2nd Edition), Navpress, 237 pp.
²Ross, Hugh (1994); Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO; NavPress), pp. 46-47
³Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, vol. 1, pp. 370-371, vol. 2, pp. 672-673
⁴Samuel P. Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1979, pp.612-613
⁵Ross, Hugh (2004); A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs, CO; NavPress), pp. 41-47
⁶Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, “Legam Allegoria” (Allegorical Interpretations of Genesis II, III, Book 1,
section 2) in Philo, 1:146-249.
⁷Irenaeus, pp. 551-552
⁸Clement of Alexandria, vol. 2 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 513
⁹Origen, Origen on First Principles, Book IV, Chapter III, p. 288
¹⁰Aurelius Augustine, bishop of Hippo, “The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6,” in The Fathers of the
Church, Roy Joseph Defferrari, ed. dir. (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1952), 14:196.