Growing up in a Young Earth church, I was deeply entrenched in a worldview that held the Genesis creation account as literal and sequential, each day comprising a 24-hour period. It was the foundation of my understanding of the Bible’s historicity and inerrancy, and I regarded any deviation from this viewpoint as a threat to my theological convictions. The notion of an old Earth perspective initially seemed inconceivable, akin to dismantling the very framework upon which my faith rested. However, as I delved deeper into alternative interpretations, I discovered that our Christian faith is far more robust and resilient than I had once believed.

My journey led me to explore other perspectives, such as those presented in “In the Beginning… We Misunderstood” by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden, and “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder’s (Jewish scientist) proposition that the events following the Big Bang and the Genesis narrative are harmonious resonated with me, challenging my preconceived notions. Similarly, Miller and Soden’s argument that Genesis should be understood as polemic literature rather than strict historical or scientific discourse offered a fresh lens through which to view Scripture.

In grappling with these differing viewpoints, I’ve come to the realization that the interpretation of Genesis need not be a divisive issue among Christians. I’ve embraced humility in acknowledging the mysteries that still surround this topic and recognize the value of engaging in respectful debates. However, I firmly believe that our faith should not hinge solely upon our interpretation of the creation account.

As part of my studies in Essential Christian Doctrine, I had the opportunity to delve into “The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation.” In this blog post, I offer a summary of the book, which presents three prominent perspectives within evangelical Christian circles. My hope is that this summary will provide insight into the diversity of thought within our faith community and encourage dialogue that fosters mutual understanding and respect.

Summary

The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, by J. Ligon Duncan III (Author), David W. Hall (Author), Hugh Ross (Author), Gleason L. Archer (Author), Lee Irons (Author), Meredith G. Kline (Author), David G. Hagopian (Editor).

Forward and Introduction

In the forward, Norman Geisler expresses the idea that all of the participants in the book hold a high view of scripture.  He continues to warn readers that this issue is not one of orthodoxy verses heresy.  He points out the real enemy is with evolution.  

In the introduction David Hagopian sets the stage for the debate.  He asks a very simple question to narrow the debate: “Are the creation days 24 hours, age, or a literary framework?”  Hagopian introduces the positions, debaters, and format.  He concludes that the debate is an important one to have with evangelicals, especially since we agree on far more than we disagree with.

The 24-Hour View by Duncan and Hall

Duncan and Hall start with three lines of argument.  The first line of argument is that this debate is a recent debate and that most of Church history has held to the view that the days in Genesis 1 are 24-hour periods during one consecutive 168-hour week.  The second line of argument is based on the how to properly interpret the text which includes exegesis, hermeneutics and theology.^[1] The third concern is with the impact of alternate views on theology, although they argue that their 24-hour position does not require that they take any particular position on the age of the Universe.

Historical Understanding

Duncan and Hall argue the other views on the length of days are modern interpretation that is allowing extra-biblical and secular theories inform their interpretation of the biblical text.  They are concerned that modern scientific theories are not certain enough to outweigh the historical interpretation of the bible.^[2]  Duncan and Hall cite a long list of historic theologians as support for their view.  They feel any change in the view as an accommodation to scientific theories and a compromise on scripture and that the other views are being held hostage by Darwinian evolution.^[3]

Exegesis

Duncan and Hall list a number of exegetical supports for the position.  First, one of the basic and fundamental concerns is the intent of the original author and how it would be read by the original audience.^[4]  They also contend that there is no reason not to take the straightforward and clear meaning. They argue that historical methods and Ockham’s razor would favor the straightforward and clear meaning of the text.^[5]

During the days of creation Duncan and Hall note that God created with a command.  In their view this seems to militate against any intermediary causes or days meaning ages.  Another exegetical clue comes from hints like “evening and morning” as an indication that the author intends us to view the days as normal 24 hour days.  Duncan and Hall also don’t see any indication of figurative language like anthropomorphic language.  They don’t see a problem with days being in existence before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on day four.  They agree that the Hebrew word yom can have up to three different meanings, however, they argue that the 24-hour definition is the best one given the context.

Duncan and Hill make the argument that the rest of Scripture affirms that creation was unmediated word of God and not natural processes over long periods of time.  They argue God did not need the assistance of other forces in creation,^[6]and that the Bible does not contain misleading or ambiguous information.^[7] 

Duncan and Hall survey the rest of the Bible, for insight into how they portray the creation.  They conclude that there is nothing in any other text in the Bible, which would indicate anything other reading of Genesis 1.  This includes the long Sabbath rest of Hebrews 11, which they argue is not applicable.  For them it is clear that we should take yom as 24-hour days.

Theological

Duncan and Hall maintain that there are three view on the creation.  The idea that God created the Universe stands in opposition to modern naturalism and ancient paganism.^[8]  They see other positions as accommodating scripture to the latest scientific trends and a major and revolutionary change in Christian hermeneutics.  They believe other views undercut the historical character of the creation story.  The other positions that seek to take the creation story as figurative will lead to a slippery slope.^[9]  Duncan and Hall find that a compromise effects other areas of theology including hermeneutics, cosmology, apologetics, and trustworthiness of scripture,^[10]and there is no reason to abandon the idea that the Bible is giving us a divinely inspired accurate cosmology.   

The Day-Age Response

Ross and Archer start their rebuttal by noting this question demands our best efforts and their careful scholarship has led them to a different conclusion.^[11]  They continue by making it clear that Darwinian Theory doesn’t influence theory, nor do they subscribe to Darwinian evolution.^[12]In addition they point out that Duncan and Hall make their position as the only orthodox, traditional, classical and literal position.^[13]

They point out that throughout history the question of the length of day was not the emphasis of the great theologians cited by Duncan and Hall.  They maintain the main emphasis of these theologians was concerning God having created and not the time that had lapsed.^[14]

Ross and Archer argue that Duncan and Hall’s position has a number of exegetical difficulties such as a non-solar light source in Genesis 1, the tasks Adam had to complete on the sixth day, the seventh day being portrayed as a longer period of time.  In addition, they point out that there are two Hebrew words for create in Genesis, haya and bara.  Haya means something more along the lines of making something out of preexisting material or to make something to appear rather than to create ex nihilo as bara would indicate.^[15]

They conclude that these problems are insurmountable and that there must be accord between God’s revelation and the facts of creation (nature).

The Framework Response

Irons and Kline say the debate hinges on whether or not to take Genesis 1 and 2 as literal or figurative.^[16]They also take exception to Duncan and Hall finding any view other than the 24-hour view to be an accommodation to a modern evolutionary.^[17]

First they find Duncan and Hall position sets up a straw man for the framework position.  Irons and Kline argue that they do not interact with the most influential proponents of the framework theory and instead focus on a cursory understanding from a limited number of sources and they misquote Kline.^[18]

Irons and Kline also bring up the issue of light on day one and luminaries on day four.  To reach the conclusion that God could have used non solar light sources is not derived from the text but is simply speculation.^[19]Another concern is their dealing with the eternal Sabbath of the seventh day.  While Duncan and Hall assume that their reading of the text is the only natural reading of the text, however, the New Testament portrays the seventh day as ongoing and not a finite 24-hour period.  

Concerning the page after page of citing scriptural references, none of them, according to Irons and Kline, address the question of the nature of the length of time for the days.^[20]

Irons and Kline point out that Duncan and Hall’s argument relies too much on tradition and an erroneous reading of Church History.  Duncan and Hall review the history not based upon the views of Genesis 1 and 2 as being literal or figurative, instead they are looked to Church history to answer the question of whether or not God created through mediation.  This is simply the wrong question for this debate. 

The 24-Hour Reply

Duncan and Hall respond by stating the day age and framework position are very close to one another. They claim the framework and day age views are virtually compatible.^[21]  Duncan and Hall reiterate that both positions elevate modern authorities over the Word of God. They argue there is only two positions, the universal historic position and those of modernity.

Concerning the historical record, Duncan and Hall argue that neither rebuttal interacted with the commentators and the majority of Christians over time.^[22]  Neither Ross-Archer nor Irons-Kline have addressed the question as to how so many theologian have had it wrong for so long.

They argue that exegetically the plain and normal reading of day in Genesis 1, in context, has to be 24-hour days.  This is how the word is most often used in scripture. Just because yom is used in different way in different passages does not mean that we must use one of those meanings here.  Plus they see no other indication to take it any other way.

They disagree with Ross and Archer concerning the book of nature claiming Ross and Archer place nature on an equal footing with scripture.^[23]  They also contend that Ross and Archer place to much weight on scientific knowledge.  They disagree with Irons and Kline concerning their understanding and familiarity with the framework position.  They claim they do not need to cite every source that holds opposing views.  They conclude that the other views are attempting to “bully” believers and treat their position as a “second-class” view.^[24]

The Day-Age View by Ross and Archer

Ross and Archer believe that a coherent testable model for creation should be the goal of the debate and they believe it is possible to formulate a position that is coherent and testable without violating the inerrancy of scripture or the revelation of nature.^[25] Ross and Archer argue it is not enough to attack evolution, creationists must develop a creation model that can withstand scientific testing.^[26]In their view the days of creation are meant to be taken as indeterminate sequential periods of time.  They argue this position best aligns with the biblical text and scientific evidence.

Scientific Issues

Ross and Archer argue that we should not all fear the integration of science with scripture, or that the day age view will take power from God or disparage Him in some way.  They argue that Young-Earth creationists find any view of the Earth being older than 10,000 years to be an assault on the inerrancy and authority of scripture.^[27]

Ross and Archer argue that Young Earth creationists need to deal with a number of scientific discoveries.  First, the apparent age of the Universe, which makes God out to have implanted falsehood into creation.  If this is the case this means we really cannot trust our senses or tell if it is real or simple an illusion.  Second, biodeposits in the Earth’s crust are not possible, by natural causes, for the Young-Earth position.  Third, Young-Earth creationists and evolutionists have failed to make a predictable model for creation. 

Ross and Archer argue their sequential model for creation is compatible with scientific discoveries and the Biblical narrative.  They argue their model is being supported by a growing body of scientific data. First, the fossil record does not support evolution instead it supports their model.  Second, recent discoveries in mitochondrial DNA don’t support gradual evolution.^[28]Third, the probability of DNS forming by chance exceeds the probability bounds of the Universe.  Finally, the fossil record supports the Genesis account.

Exegetical Issues

Ross and Archer site a number of exegetical issues in support of their position. First, that there is more than one way to read the text literally.  Second, the word yom has multiple meanings in scripture including a long period of time.^[29]  Third, the Bible’s use of the seventh day as a long period of time and not a 24-hour period.  For example, the long seventh day of Hebrews and the fact that the Sabbath week for man is seven 24-hour days, but the Sabbath week for the land is seven years.  Fourth, the Bible does not always present information in a time-discernable manner. 

Theological Issues

Ross and Archer do not see a compromise in God omnipotence for Him to create in a mediated or gradual form.  The use of the Hebrew word bara indicates a creation from preexisting material or an appearance of something rather than from nothing. 

Ross and Archer reaffirm the Bible is inspired inerrant word of God and the God created the universe and man.  Further, God does not lie, either in the Bible or with nature.  They conclude that we should test and hold to what we find to be true.

The 24-Hour Response

Duncan and Hill claim Ross and Archer’s argument is an attempt to craft a theory that will attract the lost. Duncan and Hall claim they are arguing against a few variations of the Young-Earth positions.  Duncan and Hall want to clarify that they don’t fear science and that they disagree their position leads toward gnosticism.  They contend that apparent age of the Universe and the issue of the speed of light could have superseded the known laws of physics. 

Duncan and Hall claim Ross and Archer place sinful observations on par with infallible revelation. They believe they misrepresent history concerning the view held by the church though history.  They claim Ross and Archer misunderstand supernatural miracles and they question their interpretations of scriptures. 

The Framework Response

Irons and Kline agree with many of the point they make against the Young-Earth position and about the trustworthiness of natural revelation.  However, they are concerned about a science driven approach to the text or coming up with a testable creation model will make testability a driving factor for interpretation. They see it as an extreme form of concordism that will do damage to the exegetical process and science. Second, they don’t feel the Biblical account is intent on giving a detailed scientific explanation.  Finally, they have theological concerns with their interpretation of the Sabbath rest and confusion between creation and redemptive work of Christ.

The Day-Age Reply

They appreciate the criticisms of Irons and Kline and felt it has been a challenge to dig deeper.  They feel the main difference with them is in degree of concordism. They argue that they do not view the book of nature and the Bible are on equally footing.  They argue their scientific interpretation is informed by their biblical affirmation.

In response to the 24-hour view, they take issue with Duncan and Hall’s point that they don’t have to hold to a strict Young-Earth position.  Ross and Archer argue there is no viable option to argue for 24-hour days in creation and an old Earth.  They argue that Duncan-Hall’s questioning of scientific data is uniformed.  They argue Duncan and Hall put God in a box when they deny God could or would use a mediated process.

The Framework View Irons and Kline

Irons and Kline argue the days in Genesis 1 are a literary framework of a two register cosmos.  They believe the Bible is silent on the issue of the age of the Universe and that their framework view does not require them to hold a position on the age of the Universe. 

Exegetical Issues

Irons and Kline argue that we must pay particular attention to the context of the text and they have two fundamental indicators in the text that point toward their framework view.  First, there are the nonliteral^[30]elements in the text and second, there are non-sequential elements in the text.  These two elements militate against the day-age and the 24-hour view.

Irons and Kline argue the Bible often uses non-sequential events or dischronologization.  They argue this sets a precedence that makes their argument possible.  We cannot assume that the Genesis accounts are neutral video-recorded type of accounts.^[31]Irons and Kline add that temporal recapitulation, retelling a story in a different way, is already found in the text between Genesis 1 and 2. 

They point at a number of weaknesses for the competing views.  Following the mandate to interpret scripture with scripture, the 24-hour view a hopeless contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.  The 24-hour view has to rely on presumptions in order to account for the lack of rain.  There is weakness in the day age view for holding to the sequential reading of the text; for example the need for vegetation day three before the sun and moon day four.

Irons and Kline address two common objections.  First, is the claim the fourth commandment necessitates a 24-hour interpretation for reading Genesis 1.  Second, the usage of the word yom, in Genesis 1, does not require a 24-hour interpretation in context.^[32]

The 24-Hour Response

Duncan and Hall claim they don’t question Irons-Kline’s orthodoxy.  They think the position of figurative and non-sequential as being too selective.  They point out four problems with the framework position.  They don’t feel the framework view is uniquely agnostic on the age of the Earth, because they claim their view is also agnostic.  The framework view neglects the history of church on this issue.  They find Irons and Kline’s arguments are condescending and unconvincing.  Finally, they believe the framework view suffocates miracles.

The Day-Age Response

Ross and Archer take issue with the view that haya and bara are synonymous.  They agree it can have the same meaning, however, the predominant usage is to create or form from preexistent material.  They argue Irons and Kline push the ideas of dischronology too far.  They take issue with the idea that general revelation is always flawed.  Irons and Kline are forcing the parallelism onto the text. They commit an either-or-fallacy on miracles.  They argue that Irons and Kline can’t challenge society because they move their interpretation to one that does not challenge opposing views and cannot be proved or disproved.

The Framework Reply

Response to 24-hour rebuttal.  Irons and Kline defend their position based on recapitulation, non-sequential narration and temporal recapitulation.  They hold that Duncan and Hall’s theological objections are flawed.  They claim they are not letting the Bible interpret the Bible instead they are relying on church tradition.  They take issue with their claim that Duncan and Hall are not committed to an age for the universe.

Response to day age rebuttal.  They take issue with the idea that the luminaries became visible on day 4 and were created on day 1.  They contend that the use of haya should be understood from context to mean created from nothing.  Ross and Archer push the point against dischronology too far.  They feel the parallelism is not being forced, but that it is supported but the context.  They claim that they don’t fall for the either-or-fallacy but that Ross and Archer are falling victim to the either-or-fallacy and feel they are being driven by outside apologetic concerns. 

Conclusion by David G. Hagopian

In the conclusion David Hagopian point out the positive point each of the views bring to the table and thanks them for their commitment to the Word.

Endnotes

^[1]Hagopian, D. Editor, The Genesis Debate, Three Views on the Days of Creation (MissionViejo, Cruxpress, 2001) pg 22

^[2]Ibid pg 24

^[3]Ibid pg 58

^[4]Ibid pg 25

^[5]Ibid pg 30

^[6]Ibid P 36

^[7]Ibid P 37

^[8]Ibid pg 28

^[9]Ibid pg 30

^[10]Ibid pg 57

^[11]Ibid pg 67

^[12]Ibid pg 68

^[13]Ibid pg 69

^[14]Ibid pg 69

^[15]Ibid pg 70

^[16]Ibid pg 83

^[17]Ibid pg 83

^[18]Ibid pg 92

^[19]Ibid pg 86

^[20]Ibid pg 87

^[21]Ibid pg 108

^[22]Ibid pg 96

^[23]Ibid pg 107

^[24]Ibid pg 113

^[25]Ibid pg 124

^[26]Ibid pg 133

^[27]Ibid pg 128

^[28]Ibid pg 141

^[29]Ibid pg 125

^[30]As they argue for the nonliteral approach they point out that nonliteral does not mean they deny the historicity of creation.  On the contrary they wholeheartedly affirm the historicity of creation.

^[31]Ibid pg 223

^[32]Ibid pg 250

Reflection

• How has your understanding of the Genesis creation account evolved over time, and what factors have influenced this evolution?
• Do you believe that the length of the creation days is a critical theological issue for Christians to debate, or do you prioritize other aspects of faith and doctrine?
• How do you reconcile scientific discoveries and biblical interpretation in your personal understanding of the Genesis creation narrative?