Day 1 seemed to last forever—and it almost did.  About 65% of the total age of the universe is captured by Day 1 according to the Old Earth model (see previous Blog #35). It began the moment God spoke the universe into existence.  Two generations of stars preceded a 3^rd generational star—our sun, birthed from a collapsing proplyd (dust cloud).  The Earth was eventually accreted from the proplyd’s residual dust but was struck early-on by a Mercury-sized planetoid.  The collision blew off significant portions of the Earth’s surface and crustal material which eventually accreted to form the moon as suggested by the Apollo lunar samples.

This raucous beginning follows the descriptions of God’s intent to “sculpt” and “hammer-out” the early Earth to make it habitable for life (Isaiah 42:5 and 45:18).   The collision led to Earth’s unique characteristics we enjoy today.  Planetary models suggest it slowed the rotation rate of our planet, removed a portion of the opaque atmosphere, and provided a huge iron-nickel core from the absorbed planetoid.  And that brings us to Day 2 of the Old Earth model.

These Creation blogs integrate the Old Testament creation-related verbs and cross-references.  Scripture, once integrated with current scientific observations and dates, deeply divides the Young and Old Earth models. The Young Earth model focuses upon a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

As noted in the previous blog, model comparisons will follow the basic ground-rules and interpretive formats listed below:

• Use All Available Scripture
• Assume Scientific Age Measurements are Legitimate (Romans 1)
• Acknowledge That God’s Natural Laws Control the Earth (and Universe; Job 38)
• Acknowledge That God Also Works Via Occasional Miraculous Intervention

Scriptural interpretation will include the important, ancient Hebrew verb definitions:

• “bara” – “The root bara has the basic meaning ‘to create’ . . . bara emphasizes the initiation of the object—from out of nothing.” I used the phrase, “God spoke, and “poof!” it happened.”
• “asa” – “When used in the sense of ‘to make’, the emphasis is on the fashioning of the object” . . . implication is to do, or make from previously existing material.”
• “yatsar” – “When used in the sense of ‘to make’, the emphasis is on the fashioning of the object” . . . implication is to sculpture, or form like pottery.”

 

Time comparisons will also be made between the seven “days” in Genesis 1 and the estimated age of the universe (15 By) using a time comparison chart.  Thousands of technical papers address and describe the above solar and planetary formation mechanisms and post-formation processes on Earth.  I will lean upon two books in the discussion of Days 2-6 that summarize these mechanisms.^1,2 We’ll follow Paul’s encouragement in Romans 1:18-20 to “understand” God’s creation and integrate the technical (scientific) data and observations. The Old Earth model considers science and scientists as allies for data acquisition and recognizes that scientists themselves can be converted to God as they seek to “understand” the data.

The Daily Ledger

This section critiques the Old Earth model’s interpretation of Genesis 1 (Days 2-4) on a day-by-day basis.  (See also Blogs #21-24, The Creation Event series for additional context.)  And again, the following summary reflects my experience with Old Earth teachings and may vary from other Old Earth views.

Day 1.  Day 1 of the Old Earth model was discussed in Blog #35 and briefly summarized in the above (opening) paragraphs.  It will not be included here.  However, as mentioned, the collision between Earth and Theia (the planetoid) radically changed our early planet. Our atmosphere was likely influenced.

Day 2.  In the Day 1 discussion I stated that according to the planetary models, Earth was rotating at a much higher rate prior to the collision with Theia.  Wind velocities on the Earth’s surface likely exceeded 1000 mph with suspended water, dust, and rock debris.^1,2 I used the analogy of the interior of a high-speed kitchen blender in a dark room.

The planetary models suggest that, following the collision, a portion of the dust-laden atmosphere was blown away and the Earth’s rotation rate slowed significantly.  Our atmosphere became translucent and began to stabilize for the first time following our planet’s accretion.   Our familiar hydrologic cycle of evaporation, condensation, rainfall, and transport possibly began during this period (Figure 1).  The Scriptural account of Day 2 follows:

 

Day 3.  God’s focus in the Creation process changes in Day 3.  The Day 3 verses follow:

 

The process of “letting the dry land appear” implies a change in surface physiography—the surface became elevated in one of more areas (early continental Pangea) and depressed in others (ocean basins).  We see crustal modification at work today in the process called “plate tectonics.”  The ocean crust is dividing and moving apart along the mid-Atlantic and other oceanic ridges.  The ocean plate eventually dives (subducts) beneath the continents along their margins forming deep “trenches” (e.g. the Alaskan Aleutian trench).

Once again, the exact time when the process began is uncertain.  It’s duration to form the original “dry land” that God referred to in verse 9 is also unknown.  However, the Biblical references are uncanny!  Peter provides further insight:

 

Interestingly, the subducting (or “diving”) plate along the trench margins carries water laden sediment downward to depths of 50-70 miles below surface (Figure 3).  The water reacts with the black, dense oceanic basalt and forms a melt of “felsic” rocks, such as granite.  This material is less dense than basalt, and the molten rock travels upward and exits through volcanoes located inside the plate margin (think of the volcanoes along the Aleutian range).  The lighter, felsic rocks are eventually re-worked, re-melted, etc., and eventually form a land mass that “floats” on the basaltic crust above sea level.  “Dry land” is forming today through God’s natural laws and processes.

 

Once the dry land “appeared” God shifted His Day 3 creation activities to biology.  Genesis states the following:

 

Day 2 concluded with a stabilized atmosphere.  Day 3 begins with the development of dry land; it ends with sprouting vegetation.  Notice that “dasha” is the ancient Hebrew verb used in this context.  It simply means “to bring forth” and offers little insight on the mechanism or direct involvement by God. The phrase “vegetation, plants yielding seed, fruit trees” covers every type of vegetation. Hence, the establishment of vegetation upon Earth suggests a very early origin for some types.  The fossil record suggests the seed/fruit-bearing plants appeared much later (after Day 4).  If these advanced plants were indeed “sprouted” on Earth’s surface at this earlier date, then perhaps their remains decayed rapidly and escaped fossilization and/or they have escaped our detection.

Another possibility is that perhaps God’s definition of “vegetation” was very broad and included colonized cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), etc.  I discussed in Blog #30 the discovery of “stromatolites” in extremely early (3.5 Gya – billion years ago) Australian rocks.  These banded colonies of cyanobacteria may be the earliest direct evidence of known Day 3 “vegetation.”

Once again, if God worked through plate tectonics to make “dry ground appear,” the initiation date of Day 3 in Earth’s global history is unknown, as is its duration—plate tectonics continue.  Fruit-bearing land plants occur much later in the fossil record, but we know they had to follow the appearance of dry land.  Figure 4 shows a possible time range for Day 3—again the precise start and stop times are unknown.

Day 4.  This Day is likely the most controversial of all the creation days in Genesis 1.  The verse follows:

 

Clearly, if Day 4 refers to the literal formation of the sun, moon, and stars then one can toss the Old Earth model into the garbage pile.  The previous blog (#35) discussed that our sun is a third-generation star that formed from a proplyd (collapsing dust cloud) relatively late in Day 1; Earth’s formation from the residual dust followed even later.  Day 4 appears to violate the core tenants of the Old Earth model.

However, it’s a similar struggle for the Young Earth model—but with different issues.  If God made all the plants on Day 3, and the sun was not made until Day 4, the Day 3 plants would have lived in total darkness at temperatures below -100° F.  Earth would be unimaginably cold without a sun for warmth.  And still more confusing, why would God even choose to make the plants on Day 3 before He made the sun to sustain them on Day 4?

These are huge problems for the Young and Old Earth models.  So, what could this Day possibly represent?

First, let’s examine the verbs and nouns.  The Hebrew verbs for “let there be” and “God made” are respectively “haya” (“let it be “) and our old friend “asa” (“to make from previously existing material”).   Little additional insight is provided except that God worked with previously existing material.  However, the Hebrew term for “lights” is quite informative.  The terms “semes” and “yareah” are the specific Hebrew words for “sun” and “moon,” respectively.  Those words were available in the ancient Hebrew but were NOT used.  The term “maor” refers to a luminary—some object that provides light, such as a lampstand.³ Why would God use “luminary” instead off “sun” and “moon” in this passage?

Finally, notice in Genesis 1:14-15 that God’s intent for these “luminaries” was threefold:

• “…to separate day from the night…”
• “…be for signs and seasons and for days and years…:
• “…to give light on the earth…”

But these same criteria were first included with the reference to “light” in Day 1 (Genesis 1:3-5):

• “…separated the light from the darkness…”
• “…there was evening and morning, one day…”
• “…there was light on the Earth…”

The Day 1 “light” required a “luminary.”  The Old Earth model places the Sun and moon’s formation on Day 1 to provide that “light,” so what changed on Day 4?  The Old Earth model provides an explanation.

According to the planetary models, Earth’s initial, opaque atmosphere was partially removed when the planetoid struck this planet on Day 1 (see Blog #35).  On Day 2, the atmosphere stabilized and likely became translucent – think of a cloud-covered day.  Presumably, the development of continental terrain on Day 3 promoted rainfall and further cleared the atmosphere.  Vegetation was introduced on Day 3, and optimal plant photosynthesis requires direct sunlight.

The Old Earth model suggests that the final clearing of our atmosphere occurred on Day 4.  The sun and moon became visible from Earth’s surface—our frame of reference—through the transparent media.  Direct sunlight finally reached the surface to power plant photosynthesis, and the previously created sun and moon attained their true role as luminaries.^1,2

Undoubtedly, there are Christians who have always believed that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4, and they find the Old Earth model explanation repulsive.  That’s understandable.

Others probably believe the explanation was sourced by Old Earth followers in a desperate attempt to defend their model.  That, however, is inaccurate.  Atmospheric clearing as a Day 4 mechanism was proposed over 300 years ago by Thomas Burnet,^4,5 an English theologian and author of several works regarding the days of creation.

Again, the precise times for the start and completion of Day 4 are speculative.  Figure 4 shows its estimated position on the time scale comparison chart.

Critique

Days 2-4 are characterized by massive changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and surface.  Not only did the continents develop during these periods, but vegetation “sprang forth” as well.  There is also the difficulty in assigning specific age estimates for the duration of each “day” and their estimated starts and endings.

If the sun, moon, and stars formed on Day 4, it would absolutely conflict with the Old Earth model.  If it refers to the complete clearing of the atmosphere, the Old Earth model explains it beautifully.   The general sequence of creation events in Days 2-4 follow the exact order as observed in His creation.

The next blog will cover Days 5 and 6 and complete the Old Earth model discussion.  At that point, we are finally ready to tackle the Time Dilation model and observe how the Young Earth and Old Earth models can be beautifully integrated. Listed below is my perspective of the Pros and Cons of the Old Earth model for Days 1-4:

PROS	CONS
Rigorously integrates other Old and New Testament Creation verses to form a greatly expanded Old Earth model.	Completely abandons any association with the “24-hour” reference in Genesis 1 (a “Con” to some).
Rigorously integrates the specific Creation verbs and their meanings with the Model context.	The proposed length of Day 1 (8+ billion years) is unacceptable and repulsive to those with a Young Earth persuasion
Follows Romans 1:18-21 and Psalm 19:1,2 to “understand God’s creation” and thus gain a more complete knowledge of Him.
The Old Earth model (Day 1) provides a striking similarity to the conditions on Earth during that time, as recorded by science.
Atmospheric clearing and stabilization on Day 2 fits exactly with the planetary models
The initiation of plate tectonics to form continental land masses likely began at an early date in Earth history. The sequence in Genesis on Day 3 makes sense. Land vegetation began early in Day 3 if the vegetation included stromatolites	The formation of seed and fruit-bearing vegetation appears to have occurred much later in the fossil record. A very long Day 3 would be required to account for these vegetation types.
This model assumes Day 4 is the period in which the atmosphere cleared, and the sun, moon and stars became visible from Earth	If the sun, moon, and stars were truly created on Day 4, the Old Earth model is rejected.