How Long Were the Days of Genesis 1?
What did God intend us to understand from the words He used?

By Russell Grigg

 

            Were the days of Creation Week 24 hours long or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew time words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.

 

Meaning of Yōm

 

            When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yōm for day. He combined yōm with numbers (first day, second day, third day, etc.) and with the words evening and morning, and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yōm (used in this way) as being one night and day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yōm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yōm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

            Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours.

 

Some Hebrew Time Words

 

            There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time. These include qedem which is the main one-word term for ancient and is sometimes translated of old; olam means everlasting or eternity and is translated perpetual, of old or for ever; dor means a revolution of time or an age and is sometimes translated generations; tamid means continually or for ever; ad means unlimited time or for ever; orek when used with yōm is translated length of days; shanah means a year or a revolution of time (from the change of seasons); netsach means for ever. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning seasons or festivals. Let us consider how some of these could have been used.

 

1. Event of Long Ago

 

            If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it:

yamim (plural of yōm) alone or with evening and morning, would have meant and it was days of evening and morning. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age.
qedem by itself or with days would have meant and it was from days of old.
olam with days would also have meant and it was from days of old. So, if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

 2. A Continuing Event from Long Ago

 

            If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it:

            dor used either alone or with days, days and nights, or evening and morning, could have signified and it was generations of days and nights. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant.

            olam with the preposition le, plus days or evening and morning could have signified perpetual; another construction le olam va-ed means to the age and onward and is translated for ever and ever in Exodus 15:18.

            tamid with days, days and nights, or evening and morning, could have signified and it was the continuation of days.

            ad used either alone or with olam could have signified and it was for ever.

            shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for a long time, especially in the plural.

            yōm rab literally means a long day (cf. long season in Joshua 24:7, or long time in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the days were long periods of time.

            Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that He used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

 

3. Ambiguous Time

 

            If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it:

            yōm combined with light and darkness, would have signified and it was a day of light and darkness. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of light and darkness elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yōm with evening and morning, especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous.

            eth (time) combined with day and night as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with light and darkness (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the days of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these.

 

Author’s Intention

 

The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand:

1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable. It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms.

            Moses did, in fact, use some of the above long–time words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, Let there be lights ... for seasons [moed]; in Genesis 6:3, My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man; in Genesis 9:12 for perpetual generations [olam dor]; in Leviticus 24:2, to burn continually [tamid]; in Numbers 24:20 that he perish for ever [ad]; in Deuteronomy 30:20, He is thy light and the length of thy days [yōm orek]; in Deuteronomy 32:7, Remember the days of old [yōm olam]; and so on.

            Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred.

            James Barr, a professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise.

2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible.

3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power.

4. If the days really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution.

 

Conclusion

 

            In Genesis 1, God, through the pen of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the days of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yōm, combined with a number and the words evening and morning. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day.

            The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the days of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word days is used throughout: Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

Russell Grigg is a staff member of AiG in Brisbane, Australia where he writes scientific and theological articles for Creation Magazine, edits articles and books written by others, and reviews books and videos on creation topics submitted to AiG from around the world. The above article was first published in: Creation Magazine in the December 1996–February 1997 issue. For footnote references and notes, which accompanied the above article, please go to the AiG’s web site at www.answersingenesis.org.