8/11/2019 daysix

1/2

TOO MUCH ACTIVITY ON DAY SIX?Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On occasion, those people whosuggest thatthe days of Gen-esis 1 were vast ages of time rather than 24-hour periods (a con -ceptknownastheDay-AgeTheory)arguethatthesixthdaycouldnot have been a normal day because too much activity took placeon thatday. AlanHayward, whoacceptsthis criticism as legitimate

because he holds to the Day-Age Theory, has explained why hebelievesthis to be a validargument against the 24-hour days.

Finally, there is strong evidence that the sixth day of crea-tion must have lasted more than 24 hours.Look how muchtook placein that sixth day! To begin with,Godcreated thehigheranimals,and then created Adam. After that:

Andthe Lord Godplanted a garden in Eden.... Andout ofthegroundtheLordGodmadetogroweverytree...(Gene-sis 2:8,9). Theneveryliving animal andeverybird wasbrought to Adam for naming.

In all that long procession of living things, Adam saw thattherewas notfound a helperfit forhim Genesis2:20).SoGod put Adam to sleep, created Eve, and presented her toAdam,whojoyfullydeclared:

This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; sheshall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man(verse23).

Allcommentatorsare agreed that theexpressiontranslatedat last in theRSV means just that. They usually expressthe literal meaning of the Hebrew as now, at length, andsomeof themquote numerousother passagesin theOld Tes-tament where this Hebrew word carried the same sort of

meaning. Thus, the Hebrew indicates that Adam had beenkept waiting a long time forhis wife to appearandall onthesixthday(1985,pp.164-165,emp.inorig.).

Thisisoneofthefewattemptstoprovethatthedaysofcreationwere long periods of time by actually appealing to theBibleitself.Generallyno such attempts aremade by those holdingto theDay-Age Theory. Instead, they routinely base their case on scientificarguments thatappealto the apparentantiquityof the Earth,to geo-logical phenomena, etc.Here,however, their positionis as follows:(1)thereis textual evidence in Genesis 2 that thesixth dayof crea-tion could not have been a literal day (as suggested by Hayward,above); (2) but obviously it was the same type of day as each ofthepreviousfive; (3)thus,none of thedaysof thecreation weekistobeviewedasliteral.

The argument (as canbe seen from Haywards statement of it)

is two-pronged. First, it is suggested that after God created Adamon the sixth day, He commissioned him to name the animalsbe-foreEve wasfashioned later on thatsamedayatask that wouldhavetakenamuchlongerperiodthanamere24-hourday.Second,it is alleged that when Adam first saw Eve, he exclaimed: This isnow [Haywards atlast] boneof my bones..., andhis statementthusreflectsthathehadbeenwithoutamateforquitesometimecertainly longer than a few hours. This compromise is advocatednot only by Hayward, but by Gleason Archer in hisEncyclopediaof Biblical Difficulties (1982, pp.58ff.) and by Hugh Ross in Cre-ationandTime (1994,pp.50-51).

Significantly, professor Archer reveals that he has been influ-enced by theassertions of evolutionary geochronology. Hisdiscus-sion of this matter is in response to the question: Howcan Gene-sis 1 be reconciled with the immense periodsof time indicated by

the fossil strata? He has claimed that there is conflict betweenGenesis and the beliefs of evolutionary geologists only if one understands Genesis 1 in a completely literalfashion, which, he asserts, is unnecessary. Dr. Archer hassuggestedthat GodgaveAdama major assignmentin naturalhistory. He wasto classifyevery species of animaland birdfoundinthepreserve (1982,p. 59). He furtherstatedthatit

...musthave taken a good deal of studyfor Adam to exam-ineeachspecimenanddecideonanappropriatenameforit,especially in view of the fact that he had absolutely no hu-man tradition behind him,so far as nomenclaturewas con-cerned. It must have required some years,or, at thevery least,a considerable number of months for him to complete thiscomprehensive inventory of all the birds, beasts, and insectsthatpopulatedtheGardenofEden(p.60).

One would be hard pressedto find a better example of the theorybecomingfather to the exegesis than this.Archersimplyhas readintothedivinenarrativetheassumptionsofhisbaselessview.LetustakeacarefullookattheBible facts.

First, apparently only those animals that God brought untoAdam were involved, andthis seems to be limited (asArcherconcedes)to Eden. Second,certain creatures were excluded.There isno mention, forexample,of fish or creeping things. Third,the texdoes notsuggest how broadthe categories were that Adamwas toname.Itissheerassertiontoclaimthathewastoname every species. God created living organisms according to kindsa wordthat, as it isused in the Bible, appears to be a rather elastic term. Itranslates the Hebrewword min, which sometimesseems to indicatespecies, sometimes genus, and sometimes family or order. [Butas Walter C.Kaiser, chairman of thedepartment of OldTestamenandSemitic languages, Trinity Divinity School,has observed: Thisgives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requiresdevelopments across kingdom, phyla, and classes (see Harris, eal., 1980, 1:504).]Fourth, whyshouldit be assumedthatAdam hadtogiveagooddealofstudytothisparticularsituation?Heneverhadto study suchthingsas walking, talking,or tillingthe groundclearlyAdamhad beenendowedmiraculously witha mature knowledge thatenabled himto make his wayin thatantique environmentHe neededno humantradition behind him; he was ofGod(seeLuke3:38).Letusexaminewhatsomeotherscholarshavesaidaboutthis. C.F. Keil observed that although Adam and Eve were createdonthesameday, thereis nodifficultyin this, since it wouldnot haverequiredmuchtimetobringtheanimalstoAdamtoseewhathewouldcallthem,astheanimalsofparadiseareallwehavetothinkof(1971,1:87).H.C.Leupoldconcurred:

[T]hatthereis a limitation of thenumberof creaturesbroughtbefore man is made apparent by two things. In the first place,the beasts are described as beasts of the field(haseh), notbeasts of theearth, asin 1:24.Though thereis difficulty indetermining the exact limits of the term field in this in-stance, thereis greatlikelihood (cf. alsov. 5)thatit may re-fertothegardenonly.Inthesecondplace,thefishoftheseaare left out, also in v. 20, as being less near to man. To thiswe areinclined to adda thirdconsideration,the fact, namely,that the garden couldhardly have been a garden at all if allcreaturescould have overrun it unimpeded. Since then, verylikely, only a limited numberof creaturesarenamed,theother

ARTICLE REPRINTAPOLOGETICS PRESS

8/11/2019 daysix

2/2

difficulty falls away, namely, that man could hardly havenamedallcreaturesinthecourseofaday(1942,1:130-131,emp.inorig.).

As Henry Morris has pointed out,

...the created kinds undoubtedly represented broader catego-ries than our modern species or genera, quite possibly ap-proximating in most cases the taxonomic family. Just howmany kinds wereactuallythereto be named is unknown,ofcourse,butitcouldhardlyhavebeenasmanyasathousand.Although eventhis numberwould seem formidable tous to-day, it should be remembered thatAdam wasnewly created,

with mental activity andphysical vigor corresponding to anunfallen state. Hecertainlycouldhave donethe jobin a dayand, at the very most, it would have taken a few days evenfor a modern-day person, so there is nothing anywhere intheaccount to suggestthatthe sixth daywas anything like ageologicalage(1984,p.129,emp.inorig.).

As it turns out, Dr. Archers argumentabout theanimals is muchadoaboutnothing.

Archer further contended that this extended period of namingtheanimalsleftAdamwithalongandunsatisfyingexperienceasa lonelybachelor andsohe wasemotionallyprepared whenEvefinallyarrivedon thescene.One writerdeclared concerningAdam:Itseemsthathehadbeensearchingdiligentlyforalongtimeforasuitable mate, and when he found her, he burst out,This at last[literally, this time] is bone of my bones, etc. (Willis, 1979, p.

113,emp.andbracketediteminorig.).Again, one can only express amazement at howsome scholars

so adroitly read between the lines. There is nothing in the state-ment,Thisisnowboneofmybonesthathintsatmuchlessde-mandsalong, lonely bachelorhoodfor Adam. The Hebrewwordtranslated nowispaam. The termdoesnot require a protractedspan of time, as asserted by Willis.It can denote simply a contrastwith that whichhas been recordedpreviously, as it does inthis con-text. Professor M.W. Jacobus observed that the termdenoted thistimein this instance, referring to the otherpairs, and so sim-

ply expressed Adams satisfaction with his mate in contrast to theanimals he had been naming (1864, p. 110, emp. in orig.). RobertJamieson wrote:

...this time, is emphatic (cf. 30:30;46:30). It signifies nowindeed,nowatlast,asifhismemoryhadbeenrapidlyre-

calling the successive disappointments he had met with innotfinding,amidstallthelivingcreatures presentedto him,anyone capableof beinga suitablecompanion to him(1945,1:46,emp.inorig.).

There is,therefore, nothing in Genesis 2 that is in conflict withthe plain, historical statements of Genesis 1:27ff.: And God cre-ated man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;male andfemale created he them....And there was evening andtherewasmorning, the sixth day. As I have pointed out repeatedly, theScriptures indicate that the creation week of sixdays was composedofthe samekindof days thatthe Hebrews employed intheir ob-servance of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11), and though this argu-ment has been ridiculed, it never has been answered.

There is another point,from theNew Testament,that is worthyof consideration. In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul wrote: For Adam wasfirst formed, then Eve. Ofspecial interest hereis thewordthen[Greek, eita]. This term is an adverb of time meaning then; next;after that (Thayer, 1962, p. 188). It is found 16 times in the NewTestament in this sense. [Once it is employed in argumentation toadda new reasonand so is rendered furthermore (Hebrews 12:9).]Theword,therefore,generallyis usedto suggesta logicalsequence

between two occurrences and there never is anindicationthatalonglapseoftimeseparatesthetwo.Notethefollowing:

(a) Jesus girded himself. Then [eita] he poureth waterintothebasin(John13:5).

(b) From the cross, Jesus said to Mary, Woman, beholdthy son! Then [eita] saith he to the disciple... (John19:26-27). Compare also John 20:27Then [eita]saithhetoThomas...andMark8:25.

(c) In Luke 8:12, some seed fell by the wayside, then[eita] cometh the deviland taketh awaythe word fromtheirheart. And, note Marks parallel: StraightwaycomethSatan, andtakethaway theword (4:15).Theseexamplesrevealnolonglapsesoftime.

(d) James said a man is tempted whenhe isdrawn awayby his ownlust, and enticed.Then [eita]thelust,whenit hath conceived, beareth sin (1:14-15). How longdoesthattake?

(e) Christ appearedto Cephas; then [eita] to thetwelve

(1 Corinthians 15:5) and this was on the same day(Luke24:34-36).Seealso1Corinthians15:7.

(f) In speaking of Christs coming, Paul declared: Then[eita] cometh the end (1 Corinthians 15:23-24). Willthere be a long span oftime(1,000 years),as the mil-lennialists allege, between Christs coming and theend?Indeednot.

(g) Forthe otheruses ofeita, see Mark 4:17, Mark 4:28,1Corinthians12:28,and1Timothy3:10.

So, Adam was first formed, then [eita] Eve (1 Timothy 2:13)Pauls use of thisadverb, as comparedwith similarNew Testamenusages elsewhere,is perfectly consistent with MosesaffirmationthatAdamandEveweremadeonthesameliteraldayofhistory.

The idea that there was too much activity on day six of the

CreationweekforittohavebeenaliteraldaysimplyisnotcorrectItwasa24-hourday,justlikeeachoftheothers.

REFERENCES

Hayward, Alan(1985),Creation and Evolution: TheFacts andtheFallacies (London:TriangleBooks).

Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1982),Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties(GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan).

Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CONavpress).

Harris, R. Laird,GleasonArcher, Jr.and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980)Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(Chicago, ILMoody).

Keil, C.F. (1971 reprint),The Pentateuch(Grand Rapids, MIEerdmans).

Leupold, Herbert C. (1942),Exposition of Genesis (Grand RapidsMI:Baker).

Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science(GrandRapids,MI:Baker).

Willis, JohnT. (1979), Genesis, The LivingWord Commentary(Austin,TX:Sweet).

Jacobus, Melancthon W. (1864),Notes on Genesis (PhiladelphiaPA:PresbyterianBoardofPublication).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1945),Jamieson, Faucett, Brown BibleCommentary (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans).

Thayer,J.H. (1962reprint), Greek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

ARTICLE REPRINT TOO MUCH ACTIVITY ON DAY SIX? Bert Thompson, Ph.D

ARTICLE REPRINT

Distributed byApologetics Press, Inc.

230 Landmark DriveMontgomery, AL 36117-2752

(334) 272-8558

Originally Published InC r e a t i on C o m p r o m i s es

Bert Thompson, 2002 (Montgomery, AL:Apologetics Press), pp. 205-210