Abstract
In the Christian tradition, the dominant perspective on creation follows a commonly shared position that the world was created by God in seven days. However, this dogma remains a matter of heated debate, as conditioned by the alternative, non-traditional view. There are many different theories that surround the creation and the scripture in Genesis 1. These non-traditional views are some that are not custom to the prior traditions. The non-traditional view of creation that is most common is the Day-Age theory. It concedes the Hebrew word for the day also can mean an indeterminate duration of time. Therefore, the creation took an indefinite period of time that may have comprised centuries or millennia. This model instills major consequences in terms of reconsidering the first chapters of Genesis while encouraging a non-literal perspective on the subsequent events within the scripture.
Overview of the Day-Age Theory
The day-age theory addresses the exact duration of the Earth’s creation by God. In modern translations of the Bible, the word “day” is used in its primary sense, describing a period of 24 hours (or one full turn of the Earth). This view dates back to older interpretations of the scripture, including Saint Augustin in the 5th century, who theorized that the “days” of Genesis 1 should not be understood literally. Subsequently, this theory was developed by several researchers, including Charles Lyell, Arnold Guyot, and John William Dawson. The latter acknowledges that literalism is not the key to perceiving the Bible. Similar to the Genesis flood being universal from a subjective perspective of one specific area, the “days” merely represent a sequence of several timeframes that do not necessarily align with 24 hours.
As per the day-age theory, the literalism of Genesis 1 interpretation reflects the misunderstanding that stems from the incorrect translation from Hebrew. In the older texts of the scripture, the word “yom” was used to describe the process of the world’s creation by God. Indeed, one of the primary meanings of this world is universally accepted to be the 24-hour solar day. However, the range of meanings is not limited to it, as “yom” can imply an indefinitely longer timeframe, as it is used in Genesis 2:4, for example (Brown, 2019). In other words, the creation took not seven days but seven indefinite periods.
It is interesting to see how the alternative interpretation of the word “yom” aligns with the contents of the first chapter of Genesis. Each day (or period) of Genesis represents God creating new aspects of the universe, starting from the light. Furthermore, there are explicit mentions of mornings and evenings in regard to each “yom” of Genesis 1. Within the day-age framework, these words refer to the beginning and the end of each respective period. This way, Creation Week is a long sequence of historical ages that may have lasted for centuries or millennia, explaining various scientific findings, such as fossils (Stallings, 2018). In this case, God gave an impetus to the creation and development of plants or animals at the beginning of one of the eras and then observed their natural evolution until its end. The day-age theory does not attempt to place specific time limits for each period (or “day”), but it is implied that they align with the scientific perspective of the history of young Earth.
Response to the Day-Age Theory
Indeed, the day-age theory is not the only alternative approach to creation. Similar to its counterparts, this model has seen both positive and negative reactions from the theological community across its existence. The duality of the Hebrew word “yom” is the central question of the theory. This claim is substantiated by the fact that the alternative interpretation of the word is already present in Genesis 2:4, where it directly refers to an indefinite period other than a day and is translated as “generations” (Willem et al., 2020). However, the case of 2:4 is less questionable, and if Moses wanted to avoid the day-age controversy, he would have likely used a more direct indication of the prolonged duration.
The perspective of the day-age theory does not align with the ideas of Young Earth creationism. As per the latter, God created the world and its species as they are in six literal days. However, the day-age theory leaves room for the continuous development of certain natural aspects. While it corresponds better with the scientific view of the subject matter, it implies that the world that is known day is not the immediate design of the Lord but a product of ages of evolution (McGee, 2019). The sequence of creation remains unchanged, but the exact timeline may encompass thousands of years instead of mere days.
In this case, the entire timeframe of the book of Genesis is subject to change. Contrary to the Young Earth model, this would imply that the world could, indeed, be millions of years old, in line with the astronomical perspective (Frederick & Knapp, 2019). However, the timeline beyond the first chapters of Genesis does not have to undergo similar changes. More specifically, there are only the first “days” of creation that are prolonged, whereas the subsequent events of the Bible, including the fall of Adam and Eve or Noah’s flood, remain one the same scale of time. It is the scope of the events that change as a secondary consequence of the non-literal approach.
In this scenario, the subjectivity of the scripture’s perspective needs to be considered. As mentioned earlier, the non-literal view of Noah’s flood suggests that water did not cover the whole surface of the Earth. Instead, the flood occurred on a smaller territory and did not necessarily affect the areas beyond the ones that were known at the time. From this perspective, the event was universal for Noah and his compatriots since it encompassed most of their known world. However, it is not to be taken literally as a flood that erased all continents of the Earth. Therefore, the day-age theory does not contradict core Christian doctrines, but it introduces a new perspective on them that does not necessarily align with the accepted tradition.
Conclusion
Overall, the day-age theory addresses Creation Week as one of the core concepts of the Christian faith. As per its proponents, the world was not created within a span of six literal days, which led to a reimagination of the early Genesis timeline. The day-age theory implies that the word “yom” used in the original Hebrew scripture indicates an indefinite period of time (an age) and not a literal solar day. Therefore, each stage of creation encompassed centuries of evolution under God’s thorough supervision, and it is possible that the species and elements created initially are not the same as today.
Interestingly, the influence of the day-age theory extends beyond the interpretation of Genesis 1. On a larger scale, it promotes a non-literal approach to the scripture study. It virtually encourages scholars to read between the aligns and consider the subjectivity of certain texts without attacking the central doctrines of Christianity. The universalism of certain occurrences is questioned by its proponents, who remind of the limited geographical knowledge of the time. This theory appears interesting and certain elements of it may contribute to a better understanding of the fundamental principles of Christianity at the intersection with modern science.
References
Brown, Andrew J. 2019. The Days of Creation: A History of Christian Interpretation of Genesis 1:1 – 2:3. Boston, Mass.: BRILL.
Frederick, Max and Debbie Knapp. 2019. “Intellectually Honest Answer to the Six Days of Genesis Dilemma”. Academia. Web.
McGee, David A. 2019. “Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism”. Faculty Publications and Presentations 56. Web.
Stallings, W. Joseph 2018. The Genesis Column: Correlating the Creation Days of Genesis with the Geologic Column. Eugene, Oregon.: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Willem, Willem, Andrew P. L. Tobing, and Suardin Gaurifa. 2020. “Metaphor or not Metaphor: Harmonizing Cosmological and Scriptural-Text Account of Creation”. ResearchGate. Web.