Exposing Compromise - The Day-Age Theory

Like the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory tries to find room in the first chapter of the Bible to fit the idea of millions of years. But instead of cramming it all between the first two verses like the Gap Theory, the Day-Age theory spreads that time out through the chapter...cramming parts of it into each of the six days.

Now, whether you simply read through the creation account in Genesis 1 or you study every word of it in depth - you would always get the impression of literal, 24-hour days. You would never develop an idea like the day-age theory if the Bible is your only starting point. Sadly, this theory inside the church isn't just another way to interpret Genesis 1. It’s an attempt to reconcile the secular theory of millions of years and the biblical account of creation.

Arguments For The Theory

Let's look a little closer at what the day-age theory teaches:

A geologist named Arnold Guyot formed this theory, trying to reconcile the Bible with what “scientists” like Charles Lyell were teaching. He taught that each day of creation wasn’t actually a 24-hour day, but a different epoch in time.

The claim was this: Each of Lyell’s ages (represented by the different layers of rock) were actually the “creation ages”. Each of the creation ages were symbolized in Genesis 1 by a different day. He used 2 Peter 3:8 to support his ideas - “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Using this verse, Gyout’s Day-Age Theory taught the creation week was actually six different ages of creation.

Guyot also pointed out that the Hebrew word for “day” doesn’t always apply to a literal 24-hour period of time. The word “yom” actually can refer to several things:
A period of sunlight - i.e. from sunup to sundown
A 24-hour stretch of time
An unspecified age
Because of this range of definition Guyot taught that there was no real way of knowing how long the days of creation were.

Thousands of well-meaning Christians still hold to some version of Guyot’s theory today. Most of them fail to realize the original nature of this doctrine - that it was formed to bend the Word of God to fit the ideas of man. They also fail to realize the enormous problems their belief faces - both naturally and with the Scriptures.

Natural Problems With The Theory

#1 - The Rock Layers Couldn’t Have Been Formed Gradually

As we’ve already seen, the Day-Age Theory tends to agree with the secular view that the different rock layers were formed over long periods of time. But that’s not what we see in the rocks themselves!

There are fossils (mainly fossilized trees, but other creatures as well) that are buried in multiple layers of rock - each supposedly laid down over hundreds of thousands of years. Tell me; how could the roots of a tree fossilize (literally turning into stone), and then the tree stand for millions of years longer while it gradually gets buried and fossilizes as well? No, these “polystrate” fossils must have been buried all at once!

There are rock formations containing hundreds of layers of rock, that had to form simultaneously. One of the most common types of these formations are “bends” in the layers. We can see hundreds of rock layers that were all bent at once. This doesn’t sound like a big deal, until you realize that the layer bent without cracking. This is a strong implication that these layers of sedimentary rock were bent before any of them had dried out!

These rock layers simply didn’t form over ages of time...and there’s no reason to twist the Scriptures to claim that!

#2 - The Sequence Of Creation “Ages” Couldn’t Have Worked

If you look at the days of creation, and what God created in each day, you can clearly see that they couldn’t have been long ages of time. The sequence simply does not permit it!

If this theory were true, then you would expect fossils in the rock layers that correspond to the days of creation.
Therefore you would expect to see layers of rock that have plants, but no animals whatsoever. (The “ages” represented by Days 3 and 4.)
You would also expect to see layers of rock that have flying and swimming creatures, but absolutely no walking and crawling animals. (The “age” representing Day 5.)
But you don’t see this in the fossil record. Instead you see a complete mixture of plants and animals right from the beginning.

Secondly, the timing just couldn’t have worked.
Plants were created on Day 3, but the sun wasn’t created until Day 4. Did the plants wait for millions of years for the sun?
Again, plants were created on Day 3, but the first insects weren’t created until Day 5! So what pollinated the plants before the bugs were around?

#3 - There’s No Reason To Believe That The Rock Layers Are Millions Of Years Old

We’ve already seen that the “science” behind radiometric dating just doesn’t hold up. Without this idea of millions of years before man, what’s the point of a theory like Day-Age? Why not just believe what the Bible plainly says?

Biblical Problems With The Theory

What about the Scriptural arguments that the Day-Age Theory uses?

#1 - Is A Day The Same As A Thousand Years?

It is true that 2 Peter 3:8 tells us that with God "one day is as a thousand years." So does this mean that the creation week was actually several long periods of time? Not at all!

This verse has absolutely nothing to do with the Creation account whatsoever. Look at the complete verse, in context:
2 Peter 3:8-9 “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Far from being a clue to the beginning, this passage is actually explaining why the end hasn’t come yet. The reason we haven’t seen the rapture yet is because God doesn’t see time the same way we do. He’s willing to wait as long as it takes to call as many people as possible into salvation.

This verse really has no impact on the doctrine of creation, no matter what Guyot taught. Whatever ground the day-age theory gains with the first part of the verse - “...one day is as a thousand years…” - is immediately cancelled out by the second - "...and a thousand years as one day."

The point of this verse is simply that God doesn't see time same way we do!

#2 - Does The Word “Day” Really Mean Day?

It's also true that the Hebrew word "yom" doesn't always apply to a literal, 24-hour day. Sometimes it can mean an indeterminate amount of time. Phrases like "the day of judges" and "the day of trouble" are not talking about literal days. How do we know? Because the context always makes it clear which definition the passage intends.

There are two rules of interpretation that help us know exactly what the word “day” means - whether a literal 24-hour day, or a long period of time.

First of all, whenever there is a number attached to the day ("the fourteenth day of the month" or "the spies searched the land for forty days"), it is always talking about a literal, 24-hour day. This is the same rule that we use to know that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three actual days - not three indefinite periods of time. If there’s a number attached to the word - then you can be sure that the passage is referring to an ordinary day.

The second rule for interpreting "yom" is this: Any time this word is used together with a time of day or a time of night - the word always carries the meaning of a 24-hour period of time. Here are a few verses for examples:
Exodus 18:13 "And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening."
Judges 20:26 "They sat there before the LORD and fasted that day until evening."
1 Samuel 30:17 "Then David attacked them from twilight until the evening of the next day."
In all of these verses, we can be sure that the word "yom" is referring to an actual day because they have a time of day associated with them (i.e. morning, evening, twilight…).

Let’s put these two rules of interpretation together and look again at Genesis 1, In addition to the six specific numbers that are attached to the days, there is always a time of day connected as well!

"There was evening and morning, the first day" (verse 5)

"There was evening and morning, the second day" (verse 8)

"There was evening and morning, the third day" (verse 13)

"There was evening and morning, the fourth day" (verse 19)

"There was evening and morning, the fifth day" (verse 23)

"There was evening and morning, the sixth day" (verse 31)

Every one of the six days of creation have a number and two times of day attached to them. So, in the story of each day - there are at least three times that God showed us that they were literal days! It’s as if He was going out of His way to repeatedly tell us that these were not long ages of time.

How much clearer could He have been? Think about this, if God wanted you to know these were 24-hour days, how else could He have said it?

#3 - There Could Not Have Been Death Or Evil Before Adam’s Sin

This a problem that every old-earth compromise has. When you try to stuff millions of years into the Bible, then you minimize the effect of Adam’s sin.

The Bible clearly says in Genesis 3 and Romans 5 that death is an intruder that entered the world because of Adam’s sin. But if you put the fossil record of death, suffering, and disease before Adam...then you are nullifying those passages. The Bible goes so far as to say that all of creation is groaning under the weight of sin...which entered the world because of Adam’s decision to disobey.

So far we’ve seen two compromises fall down flat to the truth of God’s Word.
Both the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory try to hold to the Bible and man-made ideas. But we’ve seen that you simply cannot do this and still maintain the integrity of God’s Word.
So what’s left for compromisers to do?

The last argument we’re going to look at is called Theistic Evolution...and it takes this compromise to its inevitable conclusion. Rather than try to reconcile God’s Word and man’s ideas - it simply discards the former and holds to the latter.