II. The Meaning of the Word "Day" in Creation Accounts

Having examined the importance of considering the length of the days of Creation, we now consider the Bible evidence regarding the meaning or definition of the word "day."

A. Creation as an Historical Miracle

The Bible repeatedly views creation as literal history.

The account is part of a book which is clearly presented as history.

Genesis describes the lives of real people in historical settings naming individuals, places, rulers, etc.

Throughout the Bible creation is viewed as a literal historical event.

This is confirmed by the Scriptures already listed. Creation is never viewed as allegory, legend, myth, figure of speech, or parable.

The whole Bible from Genesis on views the creation account as literal history. To view the account as figurative or allegorical is to deny or belittle the integrity of Genesis and of all Scripture!

Specifically creation is clearly viewed as a miracle of major significance.

See the previous evidence of Bible emphasis on creation.

It follows that we must take the account to be literal history, especially those elements that emphasize the supernatural nature of the event. To take these supernatural elements to be figurative or non-literal is to belittle and undermine the force of the miracle. Such an approach contributes to liberal, modernistic thinking. It weakens our defense of truth and leads people to wonder what other Bible miracles should be taken as non-literal allegories, etc.

The time element of creation is a supernatural element that must be taken literally.

The Bible repeatedly states that the creation occurred in six days. The time element is referenced nine times in the Genesis account itself -- Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31; 2:2 (two references); 2:3. It is directly referenced elsewhere eight times (Gen. 5:1,2; Ex. 20:11 (twice); 31:17 (twice); and Heb. 4:4 (twice). That makes 17 direct references to the time element in creation. How can this be unimportant?

Since the Bible clearly presents creation as a miracle and clearly emphasizes the time element as a significant part of that miracle, then for all the reasons described above, true believers must accept the time element as literal, historic fact: six literal, consecutive days, followed by a literal day of rest.

To claim long ages in creation is to compromise a basic supernatural element of a major miracle. It weakens the miraculous nature of the Bible evidence, making it easier for people to believe in evolution over long ages by natural processes. But when we recognize the time element to be literal, then no one can possibly believe that creation could occur by natural processes. It must be a miracle demonstrating the existence of God and the power of His word.

If we compromise the time element of creation, it is natural to question what other supernatural elements or other miracles we may deny. Why must we take other plain statements about creation to be historic fact? In short, why not simply accept Theistic evolution? And then why not take other Bible miracles to be figurative or symbolic, till all supernatural elements of all Bible miracles are removed?

Since the Bible presents creation as a major historical miracle, true believers must defend every supernatural element of the account as literal, historical fact, including the days. To compromise is to undermine and weaken faith in the Bible, faith in other Bible miracles, and ultimately faith in God.

B. "Days" Plural

Some point out that "day" may refer to periods other than 24 hours. Some even claim that the Hebrew YOM is a generic word referring indefinitely to time; so "age" or "time" (not "day"") is its proper meaning. However, in the nearly 2000 verses that use YOM, it is translated "age" or "time" in only about 70 instances. The almost overwhelming translation is "day" or "days." Are the translators of all major English translations overwhelmingly wrong here?

Study of context shows that, in about 95% of cases, YOM refers either to the literal 24-hour day or to the period of daylight (in contrast to night). So "day" is clearly the proper meaning, and the "days" of creation are highly unlikely to be long periods. And I know of no instance where a Bible "day" includes many thousands of years, let alone 700 million years. I conclude that those who argue that YOM means "age" or "time" are simply trying to avoid the force of Bible evidence by changing a word from its specific meaning to make it generic.

But God does much more regarding creation than just use the word "day." He uses it in contexts and He gives us additional information about the "days so as to leave no doubt about their meaning.

So consider now two passages that say God created all things in six "days": Exodus 20:11; 31:17. We will see that "days" (plural) is more precise than just "day."

The best way to understand a Bible word is to study how it is used in the context of Bible passages. Let us do this for the word "days" (plural). [Hebrew YOM or YOWM - Strong's number H3117 and Greek HEMERA - G2250.]

I have attempted to examine every verse where the NKJV translation uses the word "days" (plural).

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the "days" are each literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.

Observations about the results:

(1) Regardless of context, "days" longer than literal days are highly unlikely.

(2) If we consider context all possible examples of longer periods are found in prophecy, never in history or doctrine or even poetry. Prophecy commonly uses words symbolically, so such a use proves nothing about historical or doctrinal contexts. But creation accounts are history and doctrine, not prophecy. So any attempt to determine the meaning of "days" in creation by appealing to prophetic texts would misuse Scripture.

(3) Moses uses "days" 191 times. All are literal; none refer to long ages. So why should we believe the "days" of creation are long ages in Exodus 20 & 31?

(4) Overall, "days" occurs almost 600 times in history, doctrine, and poetry. Always each day is literal, never a long period of time. To argue for long ages in Ex. 20 and 31 is to speak without Bible precedent.

(5) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses "days" to refer to ages lasting many hundreds of millions of years each. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

"Days" translated "age" or "time"

The above comments refer to "days" (plural) when translated "days." However, in six verses YOM is translated "age." In every case, YOM is plural. Further, in over sixty verses YOM is translated "time." In the majority of these YOM is plural. While not included in the chart above, these instances do not conflict with the results but completely harmonize with them.

When YOM is plural and is translated "time" or "age," the "age" or "time" is indefinite in length, not because the "days" are not literal, but simply because the context does not tell how many days are included. There is no evidence that each of the "days" is a long time period. Hence, these cases too are compatible with a literal meaning for "days."

The use of "days" to refer to creation compels us to conclude the days are literal, not long periods.

(Click for a detailed discussion of "days" plural, including a complete list of the passages.)

C. "Day" with a Cardinal Number

A "cardinal" number simply indicates how many items are being described ("one," "two," "three," etc.). This contrasts to an "ordinal" number, which also indicates the order of the items ("first," "second," "third," etc.).

Three passages refer to days of creation using a cardinal number: Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Genesis 1:5. Some versions translate the latter passage as an ordinal number ("first day"), but the original text has a cardinal number ("one day" - see ASV, NASB, NKJV footnote; etc.).

Counting a specific number of days implies a more precise or exact meaning than simply saying "day" or "days."

I attempted to examine every passage in the Bible using a cardinal number with the word for "day."

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the days are literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.

Observations about the results:

(1) Moses uses "day" with a cardinal number over 100 times. Always it refers to literal days, never to longer periods! What are the chances that all three of such references to creation "days" mean long periods?

(2) At least 235 verses of history or doctrine contain "day" with a cardinal number. Every one of them refers to literal days. Since references to creation days are in contexts of history and doctrine, why would anyone think they are not literal days? (The one apparent exception is not really an exception, as noted below).

(3) Of the 19 instances where "day" may be longer than literal days, all are found in prophecy. As already observed, this proves nothing about how the word is used in historical or doctrinal contexts.

(4) And no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses day with a cardinal number to mean an age of many hundreds of millions of years. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

(5) Furthermore, whenever a cardinal number of days describes an event (such as creation in "six days"), the days are always consecutive, sequential days. I find no exceptions in Old Testament or New Testament. Hence, the creation references to "day" with a cardinal number prove both that the days themselves are literal and that no long ages occurred between the days.

Clearly the inspired writer intended to state that creation occurred in six consecutive, literal days.

Notes on 2 Peter 3:8

2 Peter 3:8 is in an epistle and uses "day" with a cardinal number to refer to a long period: with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Some claim this proves that the days of creation may be longer than literal days. Please consider:

(a) "One day" is said to be "as" a thousand years. "As" proves this is a figurative use. Does this prove "day" always means 1000 years? Of course not! As in 2 Peter 3, something in context must imply a figurative meaning. What is there in the context of creation that proves the days are not literal?

(b) While 2 Peter is a doctrinal book, chapter 3 is clearly prophetic discussing Jesus' return. As already discussed, prophecy proves nothing about the meaning of time references in history or doctrine (such as creation).

(c) Peter answered those who say that God's prophecy of the end of the world had failed. Peter's point is that God said the world would end, but He never said when, so we cannot hold Him to any human timetable. The end will come when the circumstances are right, regardless of how long it takes. So whether it takes one day or a thousand years, makes no difference to God.

But none of this proves we can take God's statements figuratively when He does specify time in historic or doctrinal contexts. Whereas God never said when the world will end, He did say how long it took to create the universe: "six days." Context and usage show this was a historical, doctrinal truth communicated in understandable human language.

(d) And those who use 2 Peter 3:8 to justify long ages in creation do not believe their own argument. The passage says a day is as "a thousand years." But the day-age theory says each day must be as 700 million years!

(Click for a detailed study of "day" with a cardinal number, including a list of passages.)

D. "Day" with an Ordinal Number

Again, an "ordinal" number tells, not just how many items are described, but also the order of the items ("first," "second," "third," etc.). As such, it gives even more information than a cardinal number.

The following ten passages refer to creation using "day" with an ordinal number: Genesis 1:8,13,19,23,31; 2:2,3; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Hebrews 4:4. [Remember, Gen. 1:5 is not listed here, because it has a cardinal number in the original.]

I attempted to examine every passage in the Bible using a ordinal number with the word for "day."

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (books of law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the days are literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.

Observations about the results:

(1) Moses uses "day" with an ordinal number well over 100 times. It always mean literal days, never longer periods! So what are the chances that all nine of his creation references mean long periods of time? (We will later note a verse which some folks incorrectly claim is an exception.)

(2) All ten references to creation days are in contexts of history or doctrine. But in those contexts "day" with an ordinal always refers to literal days, never longer periods (over 190 instances).

(3) There is only one verse in the whole Bible where "day" with an ordinal number might be longer than a literal day. One! And that verse is prophecy, not history or doctrine, so again it proves nothing about historical or doctrinal contexts.

(4) Furthermore, when "day" is used with an ordinal number, the days are always consecutive, without exception. Hence, "day" with an ordinal number not only proves creation days are literal days, it also proves no long ages occurred between the days.

(5) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses "day" with an ordinal number to mean a "day" of hundreds of millions of years. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

(Click for a detailed study of "day" with an ordinal number, including a list of passages.)

Notes on Deuteronomy 10:10

This passage says: As at the first time (YOM), I stayed in the mountain forty days and forty nights... "The first time" refers to the forty days and nights when Moses received the 10 Commands. So some claim this proves YOM with an ordinal number can mean long ages.

But even if "day" here did mean forty days, that hardly proves "day" with an ordinal number can mean thousands of years, let alone 700 million years.

However, YOM is here translated "time," not "day," because the word here is not singular, but plural! [See Davidson's Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, page 377,218, and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, page 752.]

The verse literally refers to the previous period of forty days as "the first days." So the text is completely literal. Rather than contradicting our claim, Deut. 10:10 simply confirms that YOM with an ordinal number consistently refers to literal days, except perhaps for one prophetic verse.

E. Sequences of days with ordinal numbers

In several cases, "day" with an ordinal number refers to two or more days in sequence.

They describe a "first day," "second day," etc., as in Genesis 1. The Bible contains thirteen such examples: Genesis 1:8-2:3; Exodus 14:9,10; Numbers 6:9,10; Numbers 7:12-78; Numbers 28:16,17; Numbers 29:17-35; Joshua 6:14,15; Judges 19:5-8; Judges 20:22-30; Esther 9:17; Esther 9:18; Esther 9:21; Ezekiel 45:21-25.

Every one of these cases describes consecutive literal 24-hour days! These are the closest possible parallels to Gen. 1, and all refer to consecutive, sequential literal days. Who then can reasonably argue that the days of creation are different?

Of special interest are long sequences of days with ordinal numbers (longer than just two days).

There are four of these:

Genesis 1&2 - The six days of creation followed by the day of rest.

Numbers 7:12-78 - Offerings at the dedication of the altar are described sequentially through twelve days.

Numbers 29:12-35 - Offerings are described sequentially through eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Judges 20:22-30 - Events of a battle are described sequentially through three days.

These sequences unquestionably all describe consecutive literal 24-hour days. No one would ever consider otherwise. Surely Genesis 1&2 must carry this same meaning.

The language of Scripture confirms that the inspired writer intended to state that creation occurred in six consecutive, literal days.

F. "In Six Days"

Two passages state that God made everything "in six days": Exodus 20:11; 31:17. ("In" is added by the translators, because the context clearly implies it.)

Just as adding a specific number gives more information than just "day," so adding the word "in" tells that the entire event under consideration was completed within the time described: "in six days."

Here is a list of all Bible passages using an expression such as "in X days."

Exodus 20:11 -- For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth ...

Exodus 31:17 -- in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth

2 Chronicles 29:17 -- ... on the eighth day of the month they came to the vestibule of the LORD. Then they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days, and on the sixteenth day of the first month they finished.

Nehemiah 6:15 -- So the wall was finished ... in fifty-two days.

Matthew 26:61 -- I am able to ... build it in three days.

Matthew 27:40 -- You who destroy the temple and build it in three days

Mark 15:29 -- You who destroy the temple and build it in three days,

John 2:19 -- Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

John 2:20 -- It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?

Acts 20:6 -- But we sailed away from Philippi ... and in five days joined them at Troas

Observations about the examples:

(1) The expression "in X days" is used ten times in Scripture. Every time each "day" is a literal day, never a longer period!

(2) This expression means, not just literal days, but literal consecutive, sequential days. The entire point is to state the limits of a literal time span within which an event or task was completed. This proves, not just that creation days were literal days, but also that no long ages occurred between the days.

(3) But note what all occurred "in six days": "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them." God here affirms that all of creation was completely formed in six literal, consecutive days. To deny it is to flatly deny Scripture!

(4) For comparison, note that several verses state that Jesus arose "in three days" after His death (this is the meaning of Jesus' building the temple -- John 2:21,22). This means Jesus' resurrection was completed within a time span of three literal, consecutive days after His death. (Yes, the language can include partial days, but still they are days, not years, centuries, or millennia!) To deny this would be to deny the truthfulness of Scripture regarding a foundational miracle on which our faith is based.

Do we, or do we not, believe that Jesus literally arose "in three days"? If we take the time element figuratively, what else about it may we take figuratively?

Likewise, do we, or do we not, believe God created everything "in six days"? The attempt to include long ages in creation does more than just take the passages to be figurative; it flatly denies the truthfulness of Scripture about a miracle which is foundational to our faith! What else about creation or other foundational miracles may we take figuratively? Why not take the resurrection to be figurative?

The clear intent of Scripture is violated by all attempts to find long ages in creation.

G. "Evening and Morning"

Each day in Genesis 1 is defined to consist of "evening and morning."

Genesis 1:5 - So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:8 -- So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:13 -- So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1:19 -- So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:23 -- So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1:31 -- So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God not only numbered each day, but to be even more specific He also emphasized by means of repetition that each day consisted of evening and morning.

I attempted to examine every passage in the Bible using the Hebrew words "evening" and "morning" together.

["Evening" (EREB - Strong's number H6153) and "morning" (BOQER - H1242)]

The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the days are literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years

[For examples note Exodus 18:13; Ezra 3:3,4 [See also Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3; Num. 9:21; I Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; Job 4:20; Psa. 55:17; 65:8; Dan. 8:26]

Observations about the results:

(1) Moses used "evening" and "morning" together 20 times. Every time refers to literal days, never to longer periods! What are the chances that all six of the references to creation days mean long periods of time?

(2) All instances of history, law, or poetry describe literal days, never longer periods. Why would anyone think the days of creation are not literal days? (I will later discuss an example some might question.)

(3) In all the Old Testament, only twice might this expression refer to periods longer than a literal day. And those cases are prophecy, so they prove nothing about the words in historical or doctrinal contexts.

(4) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses the expression to refer to ages lasting hundreds of millions of years. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

Some folks try to assign a generic meaning to "morning" and "evening," such as a beginning and an ending. Even if these words individually could occasionally carry such meanings, the fact is that they never carry such meanings when used together in historic or doctrinal contexts.

"Evening" and "morning" used together describe a literal 24-hour day, except perhaps in prophecy. And they never refer to a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Other expressions in the context of "evening and morning" strengthen this conclusion:

Genesis 1:5

Here darkness was called "night" and was separated from the light, which is called "day." ("Day" here is an alternative literal meaning of "day" - the daylight part of the day - but it surely does not prove "days" can be long periods.) Day/light and night/darkness are so closely associated with evening and morning that they appear to define the terms and thereby define a day!

"The first day" has a cardinal number, not an ordinal number: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (ASV). So the very first day defined the creation "days" to consist of "evening and morning," the darkness and the light. Since each day consisted of evening and morning, it follows that each creation day was a literal 24-hour day, not a long period.

Genesis 1:14-19

On the fourth day the heavenly bodies were designated to measure time. They divided day from night and ruled over the light and the darkness. They were signs of seasons, days, and years. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Again darkness and daylight appear to constitute a day described as "evening and morning," a literal 24-hour day.

Furthermore the heavenly bodies measure the "days." Surely these are 24-hour days, since they are distinguished from "years." Surely then the fourth "day" is the kind of "day" that those heavenly bodies measure. If the fourth "day" was hundreds of millions of years long, then how long were the years and the seasons? But if the fourth day was a literal day, why not take all the days to be the same?

The clear intent of Scripture is violated by all attempts to find long ages in creation.

(Click for a detailed study of "evening and morning" including a list of passages.)

H. The Seventh-Day Sabbath

The basis of the Sabbath

The last day of creation was the seventh day on which God rested (Gen. 2:2,3). This later became the basis of the Sabbath command (Exodus 20:9-11; 31:17; Heb. 4:4).

Note: God made everything in "six days" and then rested the "seventh day," so He hallowed the Sabbath "day" - Exodus 20:11. But Israel was similarly commanded to work "six days" then rest on the "seventh day," which was the Sabbath - vv 9,10. Surely the "seventh day" must mean the same in both v10 and v11: the "seventh day" on which Israel was to rest must mean the same as the "seventh day" on which God rested. Likewise, the "six days" Israel was to work must mean the same as the "six days" God worked. But the "six days" on which Israel was to work and the "seventh day" on which they rested were literal days, so the "six days" on which God worked and the "seventh day" on which He rested must also be literal days. "Day" must mean the same throughout. To say otherwise without proof makes the passage nonsense.

Note the parallel in the "seventh-day" passages

Exodus 20:11 - 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 hallowed it.

Genesis 2:2,3 - On the seventh day God ended His work and rested on the seventh day from all His work. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work. Note the references to "it."

* What God blessed and sanctified was the seventh day on which He rested - Gen. 2:3.

* But what God blessed and hallowed was the Sabbath day - Ex 20:11.

* So the Sabbath day was the seventh day, the day on which God rested. But the Sabbath day was a literal 24-hour day. Therefore, the seventh day on which God rested at creation was a literal day!

So the last day of creation week was a literal day, and surely this means the six days of work were also literal days!

Summary and Conclusion

God identifies the days of creation in the following ways, all of which consistently mean literal days in historic/doctrinal contexts:

(1) "Days" (plural)
(2) A cardinal number: "six days"
(3) Ordinal numbers: "second day," "third day," etc.
(4) A sequence of consecutive ordinal numbers: "second" then "third," etc.
(5) Duration of time: "in six days"
(6) Evening and morning, day and night, darkness and light
(7) The seventh-day Sabbath

The clear intent of these expressions is to define the days of creation to be a sequence of six literal, consecutive days followed by a seventh day of rest.

Question: If God meant to inform us that He created everything in six literal, consecutive days, what more could He have said that He did not say? If what He said does not convince people these are literal days, what could He possibly have said that would convince anyone?

The theory of long ages in creation undermines the force of a major miracle as proof of God and His word.

Miracles prove God's Deity and confirm His word. Creation is one of the most fundamental of all miracles.

The force of miracles as evidence lies in their supernatural elements: aspects which cannot happen by nature or science but can only occur by God's Divine intervention. Specifically, God often states the time element as one characteristic that demonstrates the supernatural nature of a miracle. To deny that the time element stated in Scripture is literal, historic fact is to undermine the evidence that the event is miraculous, making the it appear more likely by natural power.

So to deny the literal days of creation is to undermine the force of creation as evidence for God's existence and power, making evolution easier to believe. Furthermore, it undermines the integrity of the Bible as history and thereby undermines faith in all supernatural aspects of all Bible miracles. The next logical step is to deny other elements of other miracles. One who advocates such views has taken the first step that will lead him or those who hear him into liberalism and modernism.

Click here to continue with the next point in this study about the days of creation.

(C) Copyright 2002, David E. Pratte
Local churches and individuals may, within limits, distribute this Bible study guide for free, but not for sale.  Web sites may link to this page but not reproduce it. For details click here for our copyright guidelines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Click for more Bible studies relating to creation or evolution.
Use your "back" key to return here.

To enroll in a free online Bible course or to receive free Bible study materials by e-mail or to read other online Bible studies, click on the links below.

Use your "back" button to return to the previous page.

Go to the Bible Study Online Library (the Gospel Way)

See our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) if you have questions about this site or about the author.

Free Online Bible Courses

Free audio Bible study recordings

Free e-mail Bible study newsletter

Contact Us

Free Bible verse-by-verse commentaries

|Gospel Way|Commentaries|Courses|Audio|Newsletter|Site Map|Illinois site|

| Salvation | Bible | Creation | Morality | Church | World Religions | Spiritual Guidance | Topics |
| Second Coming | Holy Spirit | Bible References | Instruction | Bible Test | Chicago | Publications |

Hit-meter: 5214713