Page 30 - Advanced Genesis - Creationism - Student Textbook

But the day-age people have overlooked something even more obvious here: Genesis 1 and Exodus 20
were written by the same author — Moses — at about the same time (ca. 1500 B.C.). Therefore, the
common authorship of both passages is evidence that he had the same time period in mind when he
used the word day. Furthermore, we might note that the Fourth Commandment was written by the
finger of God Himself on tablets of stone (Ex. 31:18; 32:16-19; 34:1, 28, 29; Deut. 10:4). If anyone should
have known how long the days were, it should be the Creator Himself!
14

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever on the pages of Genesis 1 and 2 that allows anything but a six,
24-hour, solar-day creation. It may offend the evolutionists but that doesn't change the truth.

Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory

Many sincere bible scholars feel a need to accept and fit the geological age
system to the creation account that they have created the Day-Age Theory
as the best interpretation of Genesis 1. By doing so they are trying to
equate the days of creation with the ages of evolutionary geology.

Theistic Evolutionists basically claim that God used the evolutionary process
to create the universe over vast eons of time. They say that the days of
creation were really millions of years over which evolution resulted in
appearances of all life forms. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists
harmonize the biblical text with that of scientific evolution is known as the Day-Age theory.

They base their view on the passage of 2 Peter 3:8 which says, “…the one day is with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Much like the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory encounters many problems which render it invalid.

1. The narrative record in Genesis 1 is very different from the acceptable order of fossils in the rocks
representing the geological ages.

2. As with the gap theory, the geological ages rely heavily on the fossil record and the fossils speak of
suffering and death in the world. This places death prior to original sin and causes contradiction with
Romans 5:12.

3. The Bible makes it clear that the days of creation are literal days, not long indefinite ages. If a reader
just asks himself the question, “How would the writer write to convey 6 literal days for creation?” He
would have to conclude that the writer would write the account just as written. If however the writer
wished to convey long periods of time, it would be reasonable to infer that the writer would have been
clearer about the long period and would have written in such a way to bring about that understanding.

4. The context of 2 Peter 3 is a rebuttal of Peter to the scoffers in the last days who will ridicule the
second coming of Christ. Their rationale is uniformitarianism. Jesus promised to come quickly, and He
has not come yet, therefore we is not going to come at all. Peter refutes these uniformitarian
assumptions with reference to the Flood and the certainty of judgment for these scoffers. Verse 8 is not
a formula for converting mans days to God’s days. It is simply a way of saying the God stands above

14 https://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory/
29