It’s a fact that many professors, scholars, and authors have sought to reinterpret the creation account in Genesis 1 in various “non-literal” ways that discredit, discount, or deny the “days” described in that text. They insist that Genesis 1 does not exactly indicate what God actually did. These approaches include the day/age theory, the gap theory, the myth theory, theistic evolution, the cosmic temple theory, and perhaps others. Some of these views are tolerated and even promoted without a clear rebuttal in various Christian universities.
What does all this have to do with the fall of Jericho? Read Joshua 6:1-21. Here are Yahweh’s instructions to Joshua:
Josh 6:3 You shall march around the city, all the men of war going around the city once. Thus shall you do for six days. 4 Seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets.
The account of Jericho's destruction mentions the first day, the second day, and so forth, including the seventh day. Not only are the days specifically numbered and put in sequential order; the morning is mentioned as part of the days involved.
So … how long were the “days” during which the Hebrews circles Jericho? There is virtually 100% agreement among Bible students, scholars, writers, and university professors. These were ordinary days, and the text makes that clear.
Now read Genesis 1 again. Hmm … The days of creation are numbered. They are placed in order. Each day is said to include an evening and a morning.
Strange. Why do non-literal interpreters of Genesis read the “days” of Genesis 1 and the “days” of Joshua 6, which are described in nearly identical terms, and draw contradictory conclusions? How can they say, “The days described in Joshua 6 are real, ordinary days, but the days described in Genesis 1 are not?”
The Hebrew word yom, which appears 2301 times in the Hebrew Bible, is typically translated as “day.” In every one of those instances, except for Genesis 1, all are agreed as to the proper meaning of the term.
Of course, yom can refer to a period other than an actual, ordinary day. We all agree with that. For example, notice Genesis 2:4, in which the word yom refers to the entire period of God’s creation.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Several other passages use the phrase, “in those days.” Note Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25. Ruth 1:1. Clearly these texts refer to periods other than an actual, ordinary day. We may say, "Well, back in my day ..." or we may speak of "the good old days." Of course, in these cases, "day" and "days" do not refer to actual 24-hour days.
However, as we saw in Joshua 6:3-4, yom can refer to an actual, ordinary day.
What contextual factors indicate, rather demand, that yom describes a literal day?
Whenever the biblical text states the day and gives that day a number (first, second, third, etc.), it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.
Whenever the biblical text states the day as including a morning, it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.
Whenever the biblical text states the day as including an evening, it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.
Whenever the biblical text states the day and notes that there was also a night, it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.
In Genesis 1:5, Yahweh defines “day one” (the literal Hebrew) as having an evening and a morning. Then he continues with the second day, the third day, etc.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Read Exodus 20:11, in which Yahweh confirmed the six actual days of creation when giving Israel the Ten Commandments.
Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
By the way, these texts (Genesis 1 and Exodus 20) provide the origin of the seven-day week. Our week is based on the clear, biblical texts that insists that God’s creation involved six literal days and a seventh day on which he rested and ceased creating.
Go back for a moment to Genesis 2:4. How do we know that “day” in this verse does not refer to an actual, ordinary day? We know that because Genesis 2:4 does not include any of the contextual elements that would indicate an ordinary day. There is no mention of an ordinal number, a morning or evening, or a night. The same is true of the passages cited from Judges and Ruth.
No one debates the interpretation of yom anywhere in the Bible – except in Genesis 1. And even in that crucial text, the “new” interpretations have come rather recently.
Until the 1700’s and 1800’s, virtually all biblical commentators, scholars, students, and theologians took Genesis 1 at face value. Even those who rejected the Bible as the inspired word of God agreed that Genesis 1 clearly claimed that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days.
The text did not change. The meaning of the words did not change. The history of interpretation did not change.
Enter the Re-interpreters of Genesis (ROGs)
What did change was this. Re-interpreters of Genesis (let’s call them ROGs) decided, based on the hypotheses and theories of modern science, that God could not have actually done what Genesis 1 says that he did.
ROGs came up with interpretive schemes that allowed them to have it both ways, so to speak. They would still claim that Genesis 1 tells the truth in some ways. However, they would affirm that the universe was not necessarily created in six ordinary days.
Why? Scientific hypotheses and theories emerged which insisted that the universe is millions and millions (or billions and billions) of years old. According to these beliefs, the earth could not have been created in six literal days, nor could it have been created as recently as the Genesis account indicates.
The only way that religious scholars could fit millions or billions of years into the biblical account was to re-interpret Genesis 1. There was no other way to do it. The findings of science, in their view, required reevaluation of what was once held as clear biblical teaching. The text of Genesis could no longer be taken at face value.
It is not my aim to disrespect or question the sincerity of various ROGs. It is rather my aim to affirm the clear meaning of the text of Genesis.
Here are a few of the alternate theories that some have proposed and promoted.
~ Non-creationism
In a separate article, I posted about a current trend which disconnects Genesis 1 entirely from the material creation of the universe. This view proposes that Genesis 1 actually describes God, not bringing matter into existence, but rather adding purpose and function to that which already existed. Please read that post for more information.
https://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-real-world-of-genesis-1.html
~ Creation mythology
A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a type of cosmogony, a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, members of cultures often ascribe varying degrees of truth to their creation myths.
~ Day-age creationism
This view holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not literal 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is also used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism
~ Progressive creationism
This is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism
~ Theistic evolution
Also known as theistic evolutionism, God-guided evolution, or evolutionary creationism, this approach claims that God acts and creates through laws of nature. Here, God is taken as the primary cause while natural causes are secondary, positing that the concept of God and religious beliefs are compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
~ Gap creationism
Here’s one with a different take. Though it does treat the six days as actual days, it inserts the millions or billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or “the Gap Theory”) is a form of creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being “day” and dark “night” as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the ‘days’ of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism
Takeaways
The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them, in six days, and that he rested on the seventh day.
The Bible uses almost identical language to describe the days involved in the fall of Jericho.
There is virtually unanimous agreement regarding the nature of the “days” of Jericho’s fall.
There was virtually unanimous agreement regarding the “days” of creation in Genesis 1 until the 1700s and the 1800s.
More recent scientific theories have proposed that the earth was formed billions of years ago, over a very long period of time.
Therefore, many religious leaders and even some Christian university professors have concluded that the “face-value” reading of Genesis 1 is wrong.
They have offered multiple alternative interpretations of the Bible’s creation account.
They have not offered to reinterpret the identical language of Joshua 6 to mean something other than actual days.
In fact, it’s only when specific “days” are mentioned with creation that many are now teaching, “The days cannot be actual days.”
The Bible still says, in unmistakable terms, even in Exodus:
Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
No comments:
Post a Comment