Nobody has provided us with answers that point to anything but a traditional view of the original meaning. Anyone who says that a closer study of the Hebrew leads elsewhere is simply incorrect. The original intent is plain—a day was a day, from the very first miraculous day.
If God created the world over millions of years, there would have been death before the Fall—hardly the definition of a “very good” creation. If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall.
All of the activities described for each of the days of the Creation Week could easily have been accomplished within 12 hours of the respective days. It is only when one adds timing elements to the text that the sixth day seems to describe too many events.
Many old-earth proponents in the church today try to use the Christian theologian Augustine (AD 354–430) as a support for their belief in millions of years. But there is plenty of evidence that Augustine wasn’t an old-earther. Rather, he believed that God created everything in an instant.
Why is it that we understand what “day” means in every other place in Scripture, except Genesis 1? Is this due to ambiguity in the text or outside influences?
Did God make Adam from dust? The answer is obvious, isn’t it?
How can we be sure the days of creation were six literal 24-hour days?
For more than 200 years, Christians have been trying to reinterpret the six days of Creation in Genesis 1 to make them align with millions of years.
The plain meaning of Genesis, how the "days" in Genesis 1 have been understood in church history & answering common objections to the historical reading of Genesis
A biblical overview for why our week is only seven days, how the secular world explains it, and the benefits we enjoy from God’s ordained work-rest weekly pattern
Old-earthers claim Augustine as support for figurative interpretations of Genesis 1. But what did Augustine really say?
One of the most frequently-asked questions we receive is about Genesis 1:3–3 and specifically, “What was the light source on days 1-3 if not the sun?”
Some questions don’t ever seem to get resolved. What about the age-old question: "What came first, the chicken or the egg"?
The top Hebrew scholars all agree that the writer of Genesis 1 intended the word “day” to mean 24 hours. If they all agree . . . then why can’t we?
Unlike the other five days of creation week, God does not look over what he has made on day two and declare that it was “good.”
God created plants on Day Three of Creation Week, the day before he created the sun. How could this be, and what does this imply about the age of the earth?
Is the evidence for evolution so overwhelming that teachers may be justified in running over the religious beliefs of many students and their parents?
The words in the space of six days came from John Calvin’s comments on Genesis. But was Calvin unclear about the length of the days of creation?
The Apostle Peter understood Genesis to refer to a supernatural creation and global Flood which he used to counter the arguments of the scoffers in his time.
“Why make such a big deal about the age of the earth? It’s so divisive!”
Many Christians reject the straightforward, historical reading of the Genesis creation account simply because they believe it cannot be verified by science.
Dr. Danny Faulkner answers questions about the light created on Day One and celestial objects on Day Four. Does belief in God violate operational science?
Several old-earth creationists have argued that the events of Day Six could not have fit within a single day. Tim Chaffey, AiG–U.S., responds.
What is at stake, if the idea of billions of years creation is true, is nothing less than the authority of Scripture and the character of God.
We agree when Dr. Moreland states that “we ought not allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament,” but then he proceeds to do exactly that.
A common misconception made by skeptics of the Bible is to assume that Genesis 1 and 2 are separate creation accounts without looking carefully at the text.
Dr. Jason Lisle recently debated Dr. Eugenie Scott on TV and he also participated in a radio debate with well-known progressive creationist Dr. Hugh Ross.
After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England.
Our Culture sees many in the church compromising Scripture with millions of years, the big bang, etc. The result: the authority of the Bible in the culture has been undermined.
Pat Robertson recently took a swipe at people who are dogmatic that the Bible teaches Creation in six 24-hour days.
This volume is the most recent in a spate of publications presenting multiple views on Genesis and creation. This one focuses on what the Bible says about the length of the creation days.
Many people continue to question our all-knowing God when He says He created in six normal-length days and rested on the seventh.
Interview with Academic Theologian Dr Douglas Kelly
Some people object to a literal Creation Week by claiming that the seventh day on which God rested was not an ordinary day.
This article is a discussion of a new theory concerning the 6 days of creation and how they could be where God revealed facts about his creation but did not necessarily create.
Charles Darwin observed coral atolls in the south seas which were more than 1,000 metres (3,000 feet) thick. He believed that this proved that millions of years must have elapsed.
How could the first three days of creation be ordinary days, if the sun wasn’t created till the fourth day?
By applying a semantic approach to Genesis 1 we can accurately understand the word ‘day' in the days of creation to mean 24 hour days.