Are the 6 days of creation 'earth days' or periods of time?

This question has puzzled humanity since man’s introduction to the earth. If we use ‘earth days’, then we have to assume that God created dinosaurs in the morning, and killed them in the afternoon. Dinosaur bones are found all over the world, including in the area of the ‘Garden of Eden’. In the NT, we are told, that with God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. Some of the reptiles found today, bear an uncanny resemblance to dinosaurs.

Further to the above, “Did Noah include all of the reptiles found in the world today (and the many species of all animals that have gone extinct since the time of Noah), on the ark?” Did God flood the whole world, or only the portion that had been ‘defiled’ by the presence of the sins of man?

Was Moses aware of the other continents on the earth? Did God reveal them to him? We find many species of the land-based animal kingdom, unique to specific continents, islands, etc. Did Noah ‘collect’ two of each of these, or, were certain areas not flooded?

After the fall of the tower of Babel, people spread throughout the world, bonded by their common language. Why didn’t the modern age explorers know of the existence of these people, or the existence of the far-away lands, which they inhabited? These people inhabiting these lands, did so in the time of Moses (based on archeological findings), but there is no mention of them, in the books of Moses. The physical characteristics of these people (‘natives’), seem to either lean towards caucasian/negroid mix, or caucasian/mongoloid mix, tending to support the scientific theory of routes of migration.

It would be very interesting, to hear your thoughts on the above. Is it possible, that God did not reveal to Moses, things that Moses could not identify with, or perhaps served no purpose at the time, for revealing them to Moses, or perhaps were in fact revealed to Moses, but Moses was instructed to not reveal them to others, who would not understand them? :slight_smile:

I personally do not see that it is important to salvation history if the creation is six 24 hour days or several 1000 years. The Bible is not a history Book. It is Gods Revelation to us of himself and what we have done to separate ourselves from him and how we can come back to him.

[LIST]was there and Adam and Eve? yes
[/LIST][LIST]Was there a global flood? yes

[/LIST][LIST]Did every thing the Bible says happen, happen? yes[LIST]
[/LIST][LIST]
*]can we prove all of it going back into antiquity through science? probably not
[/LIST]
[/LIST] that is why we are called to have faith. to accept Gods word without proof.

We (LDS) believe they were periods of time. They couldn’t have been earth days, if the earth had not yet been create! :smiley: An earth day is determined by the revolution of the earth. If there is no earth, there con’t be earth days either.

zerinus

Yes, some people just want to remain in the dark! I want to learn. I believe in the Bible (all of it), but that doesn’t mean, that I can’t discuss with others, The Word of God, and compare it to what I see, as a living human being. I am sure that I read somewhere, “Ask and you shall be given, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you.” So, I’m simply asking, seeking and knocking. Have a nice day! :slight_smile:

Uh…once you create the heavens and the earth (this could have been done in a period of time equal to an ‘earth day’), you most certainly can have earth days. However, casting this aside, they had to have been ‘periods of time’. :slight_smile:

You’re free to believe either, as long as you don’t exclude God from the process.

And your ‘wisdom’ is??? :slight_smile:

The way that I’ve had it explained to me is that in ancient Hebrew, the language that the book of Genesis was originally written, there was only one word for “period of time” and that was “yom”. In Latin, and subsequently English, there are many words for it (day, month, year, century, millenium etc.) and when it was translated, they took the easiest “period of time” to measure, which was a day, and translated it as that. So, technically speaking, it could mean 6 days, 6 years, or 6 millenia.

Though if there is someone fluent in ancient Hebrew who says I’m wrong, listen to them not me.

The appendix note of my Ignatius/Oxford RSVCE says “The aim of this narrative is not to present a scientific picture to to teach religious truth” and “There is nothing in these early chapters that commits us to any particular scientific view of the origins of the world or man…”

I personally believe it was created in 6 literal days, but I leave open the option that a day back then could have been very, very long. I don’t know exactly, whatever the Holy Spirit teaches through the Church, I believe. You raise some interesting questions. I wonder if Jesus will let us ask all these questions in Heaven (or maybe He’ll just gift us with the knowledge).

What may I ask does some people wanting to remain in the Dark have to do with anything that I wrote? If you are looking for an answer to how long creation took anywhere this side of heaven it is all going to a matter of opinion.

The truth of the matter is God it does not matter how long God took to do it for he could have done it in a single blink of an eye And then reveled it to Moses as begin over a 6 day period to teach something else.

As to how did animals that are found in one part of the world only get there. After the flood the animals wondered out and geography changes what is an island today may not have been a island 5000 years ago or how ever long ago it was. Grow in faith ask on matter of faith for that is what matters. The periods of time do not Because God is out side of time.

AdriannaJean,
What a significant post! Thanks! ( I think you’re correct.) :thumbsup:

The bigest issue in my opinion is our concept of time. The human brain is so stuck in a little time segment. God is not bound by time or space. It could be six tewnty-four hour days or not. If I had to guess it was put into days so our little minds could try and grasp God’s greatness.

Thank you for your comments. I have often wondered, if the ‘6 days’ are in fact, millions/billions of years, as scientists say. If I take into account the NT scripture that tells us that our life time-line on earth is but a ‘vapour’, and I created a very ‘long line’ with equally distanced measuring points on it, and for simplicity purposes, made the measuring points equal to ‘100 years’, it would take 10 million measuring points to cover 1 billion years, alone. If I take ‘eternity’, soon, I would not be able to measure ‘100 years’, as this period of time would become insignificant. This gives us wisdom, that is very rich. Those that refuse to follow God’s Word, are giving up an endless, peaceful, loving future life time-line (and will receive an equivalent period of suffering), for the sake of a few years of pleasure on this earth. What a price to pay. :slight_smile:

As far as the 6 days of creation goes, we should note that 6 is the first perfect number.

In City of God, Augustine points this out as well. The perfection of God’s works were signified by the number 6.

For me I accept that while on earth it is likely I will never know all of the details about how God created the universe and in what specific time frame. But it is clear that when everything was created it was perfect.

the solar/earth day is 24 hours, because that is the time it takes for the earth’s revolution on its axis. God did not create the sun and moon “to govern the day and the night and to separate the light from darkness” (Gen 1:18) until the 4th day, so obviously construing “day” in terms of the solar/earth day is absurd. Day refers to a period of time, which did not exist until He began his work of creation, but God’s time, not terrestrial time.

I’ll ask God, when,(God Willing) I get there and let you know :thumbsup:

Not if I get there first. :thumbsup: :slight_smile:

AdriannaJean you said: The way that I’ve had it explained to me is that in ancient Hebrew, the language that the book of Genesis was originally written, there was only one word for “period of time” and that was “yom”. In Latin, and subsequently English, there are many words for it (day, month, year, century, millenium etc.) and when it was translated, they took the easiest “period of time” to measure, which was a day, and translated it as that. So, technically speaking, it could mean 6 days, 6 years, or 6 millenia.


That’s great for the word day, but what of morning and evening used to define ‘day’.

I know that many people find Fennis Dake’s theories to be heretical on many platforms and I am not here to defend him, but his position on the earth and what he calls the ‘re-creation’ of it could have happened in six literal days seeing as he believes by study of the words used, the words “created” and “let” are used thorughout Genesis and one indicates an act of creating and another indicates a permitting something that was already created.

In genesis we are introduced to the earth at a time it was without form and void.

The words used here, he feels by studying of the words should have been "the earth ‘became’ without form and void.

This was to Dake and indication that we were entering the scene of the earth in a restorative phase not a creative phase.

“In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
And the earth **became **without form and void” certainly changes the entire meaning of the process to follow.

You will notice that God begins to use terms like “let” in “let there be light” and “let the this and let the that”

The only time the words created is used is “when in the beginning He created the Heaven and the earth” and then again “when He created the animals and man”

Time spanse could have passed in between the first verse and next and if the word “became” is used as it could have been maybe should have been interpreted, (became without form and void) then it would definately indicate time passed between this event and the next. How much time? Billions of years perhaps which would explain the earths age.

The word used now is “was”

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw’
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

In the following verse you can see the same Hebrew word that was interpreted “was” was used but interpreted “became” below.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD3068 God430 formed3335 (853) man120 of the dust6083 of4480 the ground,127 and breathed5301 into his nostrils639 the breath5397 of life;2416 and man120 became1961 a living2416 soul.5315

the same word was used in the following verse:

Gen 19:26 But his wife802 looked5027 back from behind4480, 310 him, and she became1961 a pillar5333 of salt.4417

and the following verse:

Gen 20:12 And yet1571 indeed546 she is my sister;269 she1931 is the daughter1323 of my father,1 but389 not3808 the daughter1323 of my mother;517 and she became1961 my wife.802

and the following:

Exo 4:3 And he said,559 Cast7993 it on the ground.776 And he cast7993 it on the ground,776 and it became1961 a serpent;5175 and Moses4872 fled5127 from before4480, 6440 it.

There are 101 versus you can find when you type in the word “became” and you can see they are the same Hebrew word used for the word interpreted as “was” in the verse “was without form and void”

So I looked up the word was and discovered this:

That it is part of the definition for that word. Basically, either could have been used. So, when we apply the term became to that scripture, of which it could have meant as seen by the definition, then we apply the rest of what we know which is:

The words "let"
The words “create”

and their different meanings.

Also we should consider that if Lucifer resided over the earth, we should wonder why he was already fallen when he made his appearance in the garden?

There seems also to be two floods mentioned in scripture. One depicts total destruction of all things. The other doesn’t.

Was the water covering the earth a glimpse at the judgement Lucifer received while residing over the earth and over other angels and perhaps dinosaurs???

I don’t see why not. It would explain why there are dinosaurs so old.

If anybody would like the scriptures that evidence this theory, let me know and I’ll fetch them.

The bottom line of this theor is:

God did create the Heavens and the Earth,

the earth “became” without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep (indicating no light, though it states the Heavens and earth had already been created)

Then he “let” the light come back and He “let” whatever else he had forbidden to operate during this judgment, to resume.

Then He “created” animals, and every living creature and man".

Lucifer was already fallen which indicates his reign was before this. If we can conclude he reigned over the earth, then we could conclude that the water that covered the earth in “the earth story for present mankind” was from a flood or judgment for Lucifers rebellion, destroying all that he reigned over. It would be ok to assume that the dinosaurs existed during his reign over the earth and died in the judgement as did the animals and people of noahs time.

It’s a theory. But it has a good bit of scriptural foundation. And it unites the billion year old earth theory and the six days of genesis beautifully I think. He restored the earth in six days. Still just as miraculous.

This is a repost. I made some grammatical correctiona and additions for clarifications and it is still to AdriannaJean.


That’s great for the word day, but what of morning and evening used to define ‘day’.

I know that many people find Fennis Dake’s theories to be heretical on many platforms and I am not here to defend him, but his position on the earth and what he calls the ‘re-creation’ of it could have happened in six literal days seeing as he believes by study of the words used, the words “created” and “let” are used thorughout Genesis and one indicates an act of creating and another indicates a permitting something that was already created.

In genesis we are introduced to the earth at a time it was without form and void.

The words used here, he feels by studying of the words should have been "the earth 'became’ without form and void.

This, was to Dake, an indication that we were entering the scene of the earth in a restorative phase not a creative phase.

“In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
And the earth **became **without form and void” certainly changes the entire meaning of the process to follow.

You will notice that God begins to use terms like "let" in “let there be light” and “let the this and let the that”

The only time the words created are used is "when in the beginning He created the Heaven and the earth" and then again “when He created the animals and man”

Time spanse could have passed in between the first verse and next and if the word “became” is used as it could have been and maybe should have been interpreted, (became without form and void) then it would definately indicate time passed between this event and the next. How much time? Billions of years perhaps which would explain the earths age.

The word used in the bible "the earth “was” without form and void. The hebrew word is:

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw’
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

In the following verse you can see the same Hebrew word that was interpreted “was” is used but interpreted “became” below.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD3068 God430 formed3335 (853) man120 of the dust6083 of4480 the ground,127 and breathed5301 into his nostrils639 the breath5397 of life;2416 and man120 became1961 a living2416 soul.5315

There are 101 versus you can find when you type in the word “became” and you can see they are the same Hebrew word used for the word interpreted as “was” in the verse “was without form and void”

So I looked up the word was and discovered this:

That it is part of the definition for the word became as you can see above. Basically, either could have been used. So, when we apply the term became to that scripture, of which it **could have meant **as seen by the definition, we should then apply the rest of what we know which is:

The words "let"
The words “create”

have different meanings.

let surprise surprise, same hebrew word used for: was and became,

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw’
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

but create: is not the same

H1254
בּרא
bârâ’
baw-raw’
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

So we see that create and **let **are two different acts. The words let are used in connection to the restorative process not the creative process.

Also we should consider that if Lucifer resided over the earth, we should wonder why he was already fallen when he made his appearance in the garden?

There seems also to be two floods mentioned in scripture. One depicts total destruction of all things. The other doesn’t.

Was the water covering the earth a glimpse at the judgement Lucifer received while residing over the earth and over other angels and perhaps dinosaurs???

I don’t see why not. It would explain why there are dinosaurs so old.

If anybody would like the scriptures that evidence this theory, let me know and I’ll fetch them.

The bottom line of this theory is:

God did create the Heavens and the Earth,

the earth “became” without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep (indicating no light, though it states the Heavens and earth had already been created)

Then he “let” the light come back and He “let” whatever else he had forbidden to operate during this judgment, to resume.

Then He “created” animals, and every living creature and man".

Lucifer was already fallen which indicates his reign was before this. If we can conclude he reigned over the earth, then we could conclude that the water that covered the earth in “the earth story for present mankind” was from a flood or judgment for Lucifers rebellion, destroying all that he reigned over. It would be ok to assume that the dinosaurs existed during his reign over the earth and died in the judgement as did the animals and people of noahs time.

It’s a theory. But it has a good bit of scriptural foundation. And it unites the billion year old earth theory and the six days of genesis beautifully I think. He restored the earth in six days. Still just as miraculous.

They most certainly could have been earth days as scripture flat out states in Genesis 1:

5: And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
8: And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
13: And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
19: And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
23: And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
31: And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The writer of the Genesis account uses the term day the same way it gets used in other places of the same book. The same thing with year. A day was a day was a day, and a year was a year was a year. Why would Moses describe someone as being 150 years old, then a few pages later state someone as being 80 years old implying an entirely different concept of time?? The same thing with the use of the word day. Why would Moses use the word day to describe the time frame that passed for each creation day, then turn around and use the word “day” later in Genesis to imply something completely different? Makes no sense.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.