The Plain-Day Theory holds that the days referenced in Genesis Chapter 1 constitute seven consecutive twenty-four hour days. The argument asserts that what we see in the text is exactly what we would expect if this were the case. But the fact is that what we find is really a highly irregular presentation for a sequence of twenty-four hour days. It is more regular in the OT to see the “day” designation appear at the beginning of a sentence or earlier in a paragraph than at the end (See Numbers 29 and Judges 19:4-8, 20:19-30 for examples).

Also irregular is the use in the Hebrew text of the cardinal number ‘one’ instead of the ordinal number ‘first’ for the first day. In addition, days two through five have ordinal numbers but no article in the Hebrew. We must ask why these irregular constructions are being used if the intent is to communicate actual twenty-four hour days when such constructions appear nowhere else in the OT to refer to such days.

Furthermore, on the third day, we have language about a process that seems to imply more than twenty-four hours. Plants and trees need time to grow, mature, and bear seed. Also, sun, moon, and stars appear to be made on the fourth day. Interestingly, verse 18 echoes verses 4 and 5. This appears to be very deliberate. The same cycle of day and night appears in both locations in the text, so either the sun was created early in the text, or some other source of heat and light was positioned where the sun is.

Therefore, we must assume that on the first day, the sun or at least something almost identical to it came into being and that the earth began to rotate on its axis. How else could the events of day three take place? The most plausible interpretation would seem to be that the sun was actually created on the first day but is not named until verse 18. 

The sixth day God made male and female. Adam is placed in a garden which he cultivates. The beginning of that day (elaborated starting in Gen 2:4) suggests that at least one planting season may have already passed. Also, the fruit of Adam’s labor, described in verse 9, implies the passage of more time. How long did it take for the trees of life and the knowledge of good and evil to emerge? How long did it take for Adam to name the animals? How long did Adam sleep? How long did Adam and Eve live together before they sinned? It seems highly implausible that all of this happened within a twenty-four hour day, even if Adam were an extreme workaholic!

Finally, we consider the seventh day. Here the refrain of evening and morning does not appear. We also have substantial evidence in the NT book of Hebrews this day never really ended. The seventh ‘day’ becomes the pattern for the Sabbath day of rest, which itself becomes the type of the eternal rest of God. Therefore, the assertion that the day itself referred to in Genesis must be a twenty-four hour day does not have sufficient warrant, and what evidence does exist seems to refute this assertion.

Given this textual evidence, it is not surprising that quite a few highly respected OT scholars and Christian theologians have been receptive to an old earth view of creation. This distinguished list includes Gleason Archer, Henry Blocher, James Montgomery Boice, William Jennings Bryan, Chuck Colson, Millard Erickson, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Charles Hodge, Walter Kaiser, C. S. Lewis, J. I. Packer, John Sailhamer, Francis Schaeffer, C. I. Scofield, Bruce Waltke, and Benjamin Warfield among others.¹

So where does this leave us? The textual evidence sighted above concerning the relationship between the sun in verse 18 and the light in verses 4 and 5 suggests that day four may be a recapitulation of day one. This alerts us to the possibility of a structural arrangement, or symmetry between the days, a literary arrangement rather than a literal assertion such that days four, five, and six recapitulate days one, two, and three. Perhaps we are seeing a thematic arrangement instead of a chronological arrangement. This is what is called the Literary Framework Theory:

Day one: Day and Night                                 Day four: Sun and Moon

Day two: Waters above and below                Day five: Birds and fish

Day three: Land and vegetables                    Day six: Beasts and men

‘Day’ four identifies specifically what happened on ‘day’ one; ‘day’ two describes the creation of the necessary environment to sustain what was created on ‘day’ five; and ‘day’ three describes the creation of the environment necessary to sustain what was created on ‘day’ six. Thus ‘day’ becomes a literary device demonstrating and categorizing the events of creation rather than a literal description of a twenty-four hour day. The text clearly identifies the God of Israel as the Creator of all of the entities that their ancient near eastern neighbors worshiped as gods. These are just things, not gods, and they are completely under the control of the one and only God their maker.

The six ‘days’ are for the education of man, indicating the pattern for man’s life and setting up the principle of the Sabbath. The Jews themselves did not think about the age of the earth until they started interacting with Greek culture. In Moses day, the apologetic was against the ancient near eastern gods, so his emphasis was on God creating, not the age of the earth.

In our final post, we will consider and weigh the validity of two scientific paradigms based on our liberated view of Genesis Chapter 1: Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution.

¹See Mark S. Whorton, Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science, and the Age of the Earth, 2005, page 9 footnote.

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile