Seven Days: Genesis 1 and the Fall of Jericho

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? Well, let's start by taking a look at Yahweh’s instructions to Joshua regarding the strategy he would use to take the city.

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 circled 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.” Everywhere else in the Bible, specific "days" are understood to be just that.

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.

Here's a related post from Serving and Sharing: "The REAL World of Genesis 1."

https://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/search?q=real+world

 

The REAL World of Genesis 1

The REAL World of Genesis 1

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I have recently become aware of a troubling new challenge to (and rejection of) the face-value, historic understanding of the creation account in Genesis 1. It claims that the original “world” of Genesis 1 is “lost” to us and can only be “rediscovered” by studying other ancient cosmologies that were being developed in Babylon, Egypt, and Phoenicia. Because Genesis was first written for the Hebrews living in ancient times, this view proposes that we must understand the cultural and religious climate of the world in which they lived in order to grasp the real meaning of Genesis 1.

A leading evangelical Old Testament scholar, Dr. John Walton, authored a book entitled, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (2010, InterVarsity Press). Dr. Walton, Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, has also presented his views in the notes on Genesis in the NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2019, Zondervan).

Dr. Walton proposes that the Hebrew word bara, translated “create” in Genesis 1:1, does not require the modern English meaning of “bring into initial existence.” Instead, in his view, the term can signify taking what already exists materially and giving it its proper function and purpose.” In other words, God gave the sun, moon, and stars, for example, “functional existence rather than material existence” (NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, p. 4, in the article titled “Creation and Existence”). They already existed materially before God “created” them.  

So, according to this theory, Genesis 1 does not actually describe God bringing anything into its initial existence at all, whether in a seven-day period or otherwise. It does not have anything to do with God initially bringing into existence light, the expanse, the vegetation, the sun, moon, and stars, fish and birds, or beasts and man. It proposes instead that Genesis 1 tells us that God took materials that He had previously created materially, perhaps even millions of years earlier, perhaps through evolutionary processes, and gave them form and function.

The more I have reviewed this approach, the more concerned I have become. I have been surprised to see it being considered, supported, and validated in various conservative, evangelical religious circles. Even some instructors and other leaders in Christian university settings whom I know personally have given it a public hearing without clearly refuting it.

They claim, along with Walton, that one may accept, support, and teach this position without compromising the Bible’s inspiration, accuracy, historicity, and reliability.

Obviously, this approach allows for, perhaps even calls for, some form of “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism.” These ideas propose that evolutionary processes may have occurred over eons of time before God’s revelation in Genesis began, but that God oversaw or allowed these processes.

In this view, the “days” of Genesis 1 are not “days” in any time-related sense, whether 24-hour days or long ages of time. The controversy over the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to the “real” message of Genesis 1.

There are multiple reasons for my conviction that this interpretation is false. Not only does it, in my opinion, contradict the face-value reading of Genesis 1. It also contradicts the way the rest of God’s inspired word treats Genesis 1. I cannot find any evidence that Moses, the prophets, the Lord Jesus Christ himself, or the apostles approached the text in this way. Nor have I seen it in the uninspired writings of the earliest Christians.

In other words, this “lost world” theory proposes that basically no one really understood the “true” meaning of the text until very recently, when modern scholarship “found” it. How did those living in the age of inspired scripture miss it, if it is now so obvious? How did Christians and commentators throughout the centuries not see this, if it was there all the time, relatively easy to discover?

And another thing. If this theory is true, when did the real meaning of Genesis 1 become lost? Who lost it and why? Considering how seriously the Hebrews transmitted their God-given beliefs through the centuries, how did they not pass on to their children the “correct” interpretation that has only recently been recovered?

I am convinced that the “real world” of Genesis 1 was never “lost,” and I base that conviction on what I read everywhere in the Word of God. I cannot see any inspired scripture which would keep me from taking the Genesis creation account at face value. Rather, the Spirit-led writers treated the text just as most Bible students once did – just for what it says. They did not attempt to “get behind the text” and explain that it meant something different from what it said.

The Law of Moses

Let’s begin with the words God spoke – yes, God Himself – when He gave Moses and Israel the Law, including the Ten Commandments.

Ex 20:9 “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 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.”

It's interesting to study the source of the seven-day week in world history. Have you ever considered its origin? From a biblical standpoint, the seven-day week reflected the week of creation as described in Genesis. There is no other explanation given.

When God Himself said, “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,” how would the people of Israel have understood “six days?” If they would have taken these words to mean something different from what they say, the burden of proof is on those who would teach such a thing.

Surely those ancient Hebrews were much closer to the “real” world of Genesis than anyone living today, whether a scholar or otherwise. After all, it was their world! Surely God could have communicated to them in ways that they could understand. He would not have misled them. If the “seven days” had been related to the ancient cosmologies of other cultures, and not to the days of the week with which they were familiar, He could have indicated that. Why did He not? 

Why didn’t God through Moses explain Himself? The “lost world” hypothesis would perhaps answer that God didn’t need to explain the “hidden meaning” of the seven days because the Hebrews already understood that meaning.

However, God went on to stipulate the “face-value” meaning of Genesis 1 again. Once more, again in Exodus, God Himself interpreted the words of Genesis 1 in this same way.

Ex 31:16 “‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

The Psalms

Let’s continue. What did the psalmists consider to be the truth about Genesis and creation? Granted, they used Hebrew poetry, rather than prose narrative. However, it seems clear enough that they connected Genesis 1 to the God’s original creation, not to His (much) later providing purpose to the heavens and earth that He had already made.

As you read this next text, consider what event was likely in mind when you see, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Does this statement not interpret Genesis 1:1 as referring to God’s initial creation? (By the way, these words, first ascribed to Yahweh in this text, are later cited and ascribed to Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12, as another indicator of his full deity.)

Ps 102:25 “Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 “Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27 “But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.”

Again, though using poetic language, this next passage from Psalm 104 also points back to Genesis 1. It affirms the understanding that the first chapter of the Bible was to be taken for what it said.

Ps 104:5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. 6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. 7 At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. 8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. 9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.

The Later Prayer of Nehemiah

Notice how Nehemiah affirmed the Genesis creation when he praised God centuries later. In the 400s BC, Nehemiah led the effort to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem after the Jews returned from Babylonian exile.

Ne 9:6 “You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

The Teaching of Jesus

Jesus believed and taught that God made male and female from the beginning, apparently pointing to the original creation. Jesus accepted the plain meaning of Genesis and gave no indication that it had been lost. Also, Jesus quoted from both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together, as both belonged to one united creation account.

Noticeably absent from His teaching is any indication that the words of Genesis 1 had been misunderstood. There is no evidence that He connected the creation account with ancient cosmologies or anything else that was not stated in the text. He never suggested that there was a “lost world of Genesis 1.”

Mt 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’”?

The “Beginning” of John’s Gospel

When the apostle John by inspiration wrote in John 1:1, “In the beginning …” he tied that phrase from Genesis 1:1 to God’s original creation. I see no room here for the idea that the heavens and the earth pre-existed the creation discussed in Genesis 1. To John, “the beginning” of Genesis 1:1 was not the time that God took the pre-existing heavens and earth and gave them form and purpose. No, “the beginning” for John was the point at which God through the Word, Jesus Christ, brought all things into being.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

The Teaching of Paul

When Paul by inspiration wrote regarding Genesis 1-3, he also accepted the text at face value. He did not connect it to the ancient cosmologies of Babylon or Egypt. Neither did he indicate at any point that its meaning had been lost.

Paul believed that when God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), that was the point at which He created light. It was not the point at which God took pre-existing light, which had been around for perhaps millions of years, and gave it form and purpose.

2 Co 4:6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Paul accepted the Genesis account of God’s making the first man, Adam. Adam was a real person, created directly by God from the ground, not as the result of an evolutionary process that began long before Genesis 1. In fact, the Bible says, “Then the LORD God formed man (Hebrew, adam) of dust from the ground (Hebrew, adamah), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Ge 2:7). The very name “Adam” reflects Paul’s conviction that Adam was created from the ground, rather than his having evolved from previous life forms.

1 Co 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Genesis presents Eve as a real person, whom God made from one of Adam’s ribs (Ge 2:18-23). Adam called her “woman” (Hebrew, ishshah) because she was taken from man (Hebrew, ish). He also named her “Eve” (from the Hebrew term for life or living), because she was “the mother of all living” (Ge 3:20). From the standpoint of Genesis, it is false to say that Adam and Eve evolved from pre-human beings who existed possibly millions of years before the Bible’s creation account. Eve had no mother; she was the mother!

Paul likewise presented Eve as a real person. He taught that she was taken from the man, just as Genesis said, not as the result of evolution. Paul taught that a real serpent deceived Eve in a real moment in history.

1 Co 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

2 Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Paul by inspiration taught that the gender distinctives for men and women originated in the actual historical events described accurately in Genesis. When the simple message of Genesis is questioned, minimized, or rejected, the God-created distinctions between male and female are blurred. We continue to see this in the religious world today.

1 Ti 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

In closing …

The best interpreter of the Bible, and the most ancient and reliable interpreter, is the Bible itself. There is no clear indication (that I can see) in the scriptures themselves that the Jews ever understood Genesis 1 in ways other than its apparent meaning. The idea that no one through the centuries could properly interpret the text or comprehend its “real” meaning is very troubling. I would need solid proof of such a claim.

Let me say this once more. If the real world of Genesis 1 was somehow lost, who lost it? When, how, and why did that happen? Did no one ever write it down and preserve it? Wouldn’t that have been Moses’ role?

I cannot comprehend how the Jews, who so carefully and accurately transmitted the Word of God throughout the centuries, somehow lost the proper understanding of Genesis. I cannot see what reason they would have to start taking the text to mean just what it says. How could a Jew, or a group of Jews, pull such a switch and make such a change? Why is there no record of it? Why weren’t they caught and stopped by those who knew better?

Here are some wise words from an unknown source that are worth considering. “If someone tells you that he has found something in the Bible that no one has seen before in the two thousand years since the Bible was written, be careful! Perhaps what he says he found was never there to begin with.”

Of course, one may choose to reject the Bible completely, including what it says about creation. However, in my judgment, one who accepts the Bible cannot remove from it the claim that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day.

And so, I go back to where I started, back to where this post began, “in the beginning.”

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here's a related post from Serving and Sharing: "Seven Days: Genesis 1 and the Fall of Jericho."

https://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/2026/05/seven-days-genesis-1-and-fall-of-jericho.html