If you were exploring a remote island and found an abandoned shelter built quite some time ago and inside you found a diary that referenced a daily chronological order of events the inhabitant encountered while stranded there, what would you envision? Would you assume the authors comments outlining each day, which were described by a series of events in the morning and the evening, really didn't mean "one day"? People that don't want to make the choice between "Gods inerrant word" and "evolutions millions of years" compromise by trying to make the Bible say something it doesn't in an effort to accommodate evolutions old-earth dogma. The only reason why this is even a topic of discussion is because these "theistic evolutionists" claim evolution was the process God used to create and unfortunately their belief in God confuses people into thinking that God did, in fact, use evolution as the process for His Creation.

These are people that refuse to believe a Creator God really meant that "one morning and one evening" were really one day because they fear ridicule from those that have brainwashed a generation into believing the mathematical sum of 6,000 years, derived from adding all the genealogies referenced in the scriptures, are strictly metaphorical. Yet they promote these lies based on their own bias towards evolution. Moreover, they strategize by attempting to discredit the Bible as a viable source of evidence for a recent, literal, six-day creation, because they themselves have no evidence for the fairy tale they’ve been so successful in promoting, via the various mediums, as fact.

The only reason why the issue of "millions of years" exists, is because, as the religion of evolution began to evolve, the idea of a young earth was contradictory to uniformitarianism in that such a religion requires two primary ingredients; a whole lot of time, which the Biblical model does not allow for, and a lot more luck. Outside of the theory itself, evolution has no evidence to build any model for human creation on, thus, they slander and attempt to discredit the only piece of history in existence that tells us what happened; the Holy Word of God.

Many church leaders today do not accept the creation days as ordinary earth-rotation days. However, after careful examination of their reasons, I find that influences outside of Scripture are the ultimate cause.

A careful examination of the Hebrew word "yom", throughout the Bible, demonstrates unarguable evidence for nothing other than a literal interpretation:

• "yom" is used outside of Genesis Chapter One 410 times and each time it describes an ordinary day.
• " yom" is used outside of Genesis Chapter One 23 times with the description of "evening and morning".
• In Genesis 1:5, " yom" occurs in context with the word "night". Outside of Genesis One, "night" is used with " yom" 53 times and each time it is describing an ordinary day.

Could Genesis One be exclusive?

Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it."

The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture. In this Old Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one. This is why He deliberately took as long as six days to create everything. He set the example for man! Our week is patterned after this principle. Now if He created everything in six thousand or six million years, followed by a rest of one thousand or one million years, then I have yet to make it through my first week of life.

As the days of creation are ordinary days in length, then by adding up the years in Scripture, and assuming no gaps in the genealogies, the age of the universe is a little over 6,000 years old (-17 to +12 years please see our creation timeline link for more details on this subject)

Some try and argue that II Peter 3:8 gives evidence that "yom" could be longer then a literal day because it says, "…that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as is one day…." This is nothing other then a poor misrepresentation of Scripture for several reasons:

1. This passage has no creation context, as it is not referring to Genesis or the six literal days of creation. 2. This verse is a "comparative article" — "as" or "like" — which is not found in Genesis One. In other words, it is not saying a day is a thousand years; it is comparing a real literal day to a real literal thousand years because God is outside of time. God is not limited to natural processes and time as humans are. The context of this passage is the Second Coming of Christ and Peter is emphasizing that what may seem like a long time to us is nothing to Him. 3. The second part of the verse reads. "…and a thousand years as one day…," which, in essence, cancels out the first part of the verse for those who want to equate a day with a thousand years or vice-versa. 4. Psalms 90:4 states, "For a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Here a thousand years is being compared with a "watch in the night" (the Jews had three watches during the night, sunset — 10:00; 10:00 — 2:00; 2:00 — sunrise). The thousand years here is being compared to a very short period of time, not even to a full day. 5. If one tries to argue that day means a "thousand years," then to be consistent, one would have to say that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3,000 years, or worse yet, Jesus has not yet risen!

And finally, God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 and on this day began the inception of time as we recognize today.

Genesis 1:14

"…Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons, and days and years."

We know that time began here because God purposely tells us the creation of these "…lights in the expanse of the sky…" were to track the days and seasons. Since time now exists, God describes days 4, 5, and 6 as, "one evening" and "one morning," therefore solidifying the 24-hour day. But most importantly, in Genesis 1:5, 8, and 13, God chose to describe days 1, 2, and 3 the exact same way, "one evening" and "one morning." Thus, we can deduce days one through six were identical 24-hour days.

Now since it is quite clear about the inception of "measured time" in days 4, 5, and 6, one can’t validly argue that the first three days, or six for that matter, represent longer periods of time. I find no scripture that gives later evidence in a change of time.

If the word "day" can’t be identified as literal, then the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless. In other words, if Genesis one is not really true or literal, how can anyone determine what parts of the rest of the Bible are therefore true or literal? What would one base such an argument on? God is NOT the author of confusion!