Arthur Manning

Does life exist beyond planet earth? Mankind has probably pondered this question throughout the ages. Perhaps we began to consider it more seriously after the advent of the telescope. We discovered that some of the bright points of light in the night sky are not luminous bodies but apparently more similar to our own planet and, therefore, more likely to harbor living creatures. In the 20th century we have been bombarded with outer space; from H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers to Superman, Star Trek, E.T. and Star Wars. The entertainment industry has been tremendously successful in demonstrating the powerful appeal this topic has on large numbers of a certain life-form inhabiting planet earth.

Not only the general public is interested in this topic. Many serious scientists are, as well. According to Cyril Ponnamperuma (1991), “The National Academy of Sciences of the United States has set down the search for extraterrestrial life as the prime goal of space biology.” Ponnamperuma added:

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 30

The scientific question at stake in exobiology is the most exciting, the most challenging, and the most profound issue not only of this century but of the entire naturalistic movement that has characterized the history of western thought for over three hundred years. If there is life on Mars and if we can demonstrate its independent origin then we shall have an enlightening answer to the question of the improbability and uniqueness in the origins of life. Arising twice in a single planetary system it must surely occur abundantly elsewhere in the staggering number of comparable planetary systems.

Ponnamperuma even noted his own goal for finding extraterrestrial life is to “…retrace the path by which life appeared in this earth.” Essentially, then, the search for extraterrestrial life from this perspective is a search for evidence for evolution. From an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, natural processes produced life on earth and perhaps a similar milieu also produced life elsewhere. This scenario conflicts not only with the Bible, but also with the second law of thermodynamics.

Biblical ET’s

From a theistic perspective, extraterrestrial life may exist in the universe. From this point of view God created life on earth and could just as easily have created life and the necessary conditions to sustain it in many locations throughout His creation. Indeed, a theist might ask, “why would God create an extensive universe and then create life on only one extremely minuscule planet?” This seems as absurd as purchasing a thousand acres for a zoo and then placing no other life there other than that inhabiting a drop of pond water. It appears to be a colossal waste of space and creative energy. Also, many would consider it loathfully anthropocentric to entertain the notion that the earth with its living inhabitants, including man, is unique in all of creation.

Excluding spiritual beings such as angels in our definition of “life,” the Bible contains no direct statement affirming or denying the existence of extraterrestrial life. However, we may still study the Scriptures to ascertain whether or not such a case would be consistent with unequivocal Biblical doctrines.

To consider extraterrestrial life from a Scriptural perspective we may subdivide life into different categories and then examine each category in the light of God’s Word. All physical forms of life can be divided into two categories: 1) life with the capacity to choose whether to obey or to disobey God, and (2) life without such a capacity.

To Obey or Not to Obey

On planet earth only humans possess the ability to obey or disobey God. According to the Bible, because of Adam’s disobedience all people have inherited a nature that manifests itself in disobedience – a condition referred to as sin (Rom 3:23, 5:12; 1 Jn 1:10). If there is life outside this planet with the capacity to obey or disobey God, then obviously there are two possible subdivisions of this type of life – life which has chosen to obey and life which has chosen to disobey.

Is it possible that God created beings

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 31

on another planet with the ability to choose obedience or disobedience who chose obedience? Could there be a planet with beings living on it who have not chosen disobedience – in a state comparable to that of Adam and Eve before the Fall? Such a scenario would be inconsistent with the nature of God, since it would be unjust for Him to curse a planet whose inhabitants had never sinned. Yet God has cursed the entire universe, “for we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom 8:22). Since the entire universe is under a curse and God would not curse the habitation of sinless beings, then there must be no sinless beings in the entire universe.

“I Will Not!”

Is it possible that there are life forms on other planets who chose to disobey God? Since “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34), He would certainly seek to redeem such creatures as He has on planet earth. Redemption to another planet might come in a number of ways.

•     He might send His Son, Jesus Christ, as He did for us on earth.

•     He might send a Being who, though not His Son, would nevertheless bring them redemption.

•     Such a Being might be a Daughter or something else.

•     God might send us to proclaim to these creatures that Jesus Christ’s work of atonement on earth offers redemption for them also.

1. The difficulty of God sending Christ to other planets is revealed in Scripture. Jesus presently “…is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens,” (Heb 8:1 – note also the use of the term “once” in Hebrews 9:12, 24–28; 10:10–14). Jesus is not visiting other planets in order to redeem their inhabitants. He is seated “…on the right hand of God.” Furthermore, it is certain that Jesus Christ never visited and redeemed other beings before He came to earth. When He leaves Heaven in the future He will return to earth and reign for 1, 000 years, after which the entire universe will be destroyed and replaced. It would be inappropriate for Christ to reign only on this planet before the universal destruction.

2. God could conceivably redeem fallen extraterrestrial creatures by sending other Sons, besides Jesus – one to each inhabited planet. However, it is evident that this is an impossibility since Jesus Christ is God’s “…only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16).

3. To redeem fallen creatures on other planets, God might send other Beings, besides His Son. This option is not viable, however, since each Redeemer would be equally eminent with the Son of God, each having accomplished essentially the same task. However, it is certain Christ will never be equally ranked with other redeemers since,

God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:9–11).

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 32

There are no other redeemers.

4. Since Christ will not redeem any fallen extraterrestrials and since there are no other redeemers, the only possible hope for such disobedient creatures is for us to preach the gospel of Christ’s redeeming work to them. However, we encounter Scriptural opposition to this idea as well. Jesus told His disciples they were to be His witnesses in “…Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Christ also strongly confirms the earth as the sole location of our evangelistic activities when He stated “…this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Mt 24:14). In addition, it is difficult to reconcile God’s impartiality with Christ coming personally only to the fallen creatures of Adam’s posterity. All other fallen creatures have to hear the gospel second-hand from us.

To summarize, God would not send His Son, another Son, nor any other being to redeem extraterrestrial fallen creatures. Nor would He send us to evangelize such creatures. Since God has redeemed fallen men He would certainly redeem any other fallen creatures. But since, according to Scripture, there is no means whereby He might redeem such beings, there is only one conclusion. Fallen (as unfallen) extraterrestrial beings do not exist.

“I Can Not!”

The second major division of life is life without the capacity to choose whether or not to obey God. On earth this includes all forms of life other that humans. Is this type of life possible anywhere else in the universe? The ramifications of such do not conflict as strongly with the Scriptures as the previously discussed alternatives. There appears to be more freedom in choosing a position on this question within the bounds of Scriptural consistency. It is possible God created such life elsewhere in the universe.

However, the God of the Bible is not capricious. He does nothing without a purpose. Therefore, we may consider whether or not there would be a purpose for God to create such life. Yet, with our limited understanding of His purposes, such considerations must be carried out in a spirit of humility. However, it is clear from the Bible that man in the image of God was the climax of God’s creative acts. Consequently, it seems reasonable that the purpose of His other creatures was for man’s benefit. This would include not only a suitable environment for living, but also the opportunity to acquire an understanding of who God is by studying what He has done. Since God foreknew mankind’s total history was, practically speaking, limited to earth (even after the gospel is preached throughout the earth Christ will return to rule the earth), there would be no reason for Him to create life on other planets.

Furthermore, if God created life on other planets for man’s benefit, we would expect at least the planets (and even their moons) in this solar system to be teeming with life. However, all of our space explorations have failed to detect even one specimen of the simplest life-form anywhere beyond the earth. It therefore seems safe to conclude that the only nonspiritual life in all of this immense creation exists on planet earth.

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 33


One may ask, then, “Why did God create such a universe with so many billions of stars if He has only placed man and other forms of life on earth?” Romans 1:20 tells us that “the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and godhead…” When we behold an immeasurably vast cosmos we understand its Creator is immeasurably powerful.

Another issue in the consideration of extraterrestrial physical life is: how do we account for unidentified flying objects – UFO’S? General explanations for their occurrence includes: (1) optical illusions, (2) hoaxes perpetrated upon the witnesses, or even by the supposed witnesses, (3) secret human technology, and (4) ruses perpetrated by evil spirits.

The first three are natural causes and none actually represent extraterrestrial life. If the fourth were true, what purposes would evil spirits have for deceiving people into believing in extraterrestrial life? If people believed there were advanced forms of life elsewhere, this might suggest we could find solutions to mankind’s problems from sources other that God.

If there are advanced life-forms somewhere out in space, perhaps they could use their technology or superhuman powers to remedy all mankind’s problems. Even if they were not willing or able to help us, we could still derive hope from the prospect that we may ultimately develop our technology to the same degree as theirs, or that we might eventually evolve such superhuman powers. In the end, we could solve our problems without having to submit to God. If Satan can convince us the solution for mankind is in the creation rather than in the Creator, He will have succeeded in his goal of keeping us separated from God, our only true hope.

The Heavens Declare the Glory of God

Finally, does the impossibility of life with or without the capability of obeying God, in an innocent or fallen state, mean that we should cease all space exploration? Considering that the more we learn about creation, the more we see evidence for an all-wise, all-powerful Creator – those who believe in that Creator should enthusiastically support space exploration. The heavens, indeed, declare the glory of God! So let us continue our quest for understanding the creation – not in the vain hope of finding evidence for evolution or contacting extraterrestrial intelligence, but in the confident, joyful anticipation of perceiving more and more of God’s glory!


Ponnamperuma, Cyril.

1991 Life in the Universe. 37th Louis H. Bauer Lecture at the 62nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association. Cincinnati OH.

יוֹם YOM
A Study of the Hebrew Word Yom in the Creation Narrative (Genesis 1, 2)

David G. Hansen

Yom. It is such a little word. Yet, among Bible scholars it is a word that has resulted in much controversy. It is usually translated into English as “day.” Harper’s Bible Dictionary (1986: 1072) states the term “day” in the Hebrew Bible can either mean “the term between sunrise and sunset or from sunset to sunset (Gn 1:5).” However, the use of yom in Genesis 1:5, and the following creation narrative, has generated considerable debate. Gleason Archer (1994: 196) captures the essence of the argument in the following way:

From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author…this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.

Thus, the issue of the length and nature of the days of Genesis has occupied discussions of Biblical cosmology for many years. As Davis (1996; 51) writes, “to initiate the liveliest of debates one need only raise this issue, but far too often the discussion will produce more heat than light” [no pun intended, I think]. The reason the issue is so charged, Davis suggests, is because it has scientific, theological, and philosophical ramifications. In this article I will examine and comment on some of the arguments and then recommend some practical applications.

It might be helpful to begin the discussion with a quote of Genesis 1:5, the place where yom is used in the Hebrew Bible for the first time: “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASB). “Day” in this verse is the translated Hebrew word, yom, and it can also be found in verses 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31, as they describe the days of creation. However, yom is used in at least four ways in the first two chapters of Genesis: the 12-hour period of daylight as opposed to night

(article continued on page 37)

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 36

“And there was evening and morning, the first day.

And God saw that it was good”

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 37

(vv. 14, 16, 18); a period of 24 hours (v. 14); the period of light that began with the creation of light on the first creative day (v. 5); and the entire, six-day creative period (2:4) (Davis 1996: 51; Ross 1988: 109; Harris 1980: 370).

1st Day Creation Of Earth, Light And Possibly Angels

Depending upon the reader’s theological and scientific predilection, the different uses of yom have led to various interpretations of Genesis 1:5 and the subsequent verses of the creation account. The conservative position, stated by A. P. Ross (1988: 109), is that “it seems inescapable that Genesis presents the creation in six [literal] days.” His view is supported by such scholars as C. Simpson who wrote the introduction and exegesis of Genesis in The Interpreter’s Bible (1952: 471). In it he states “there can be no question but that by Day the author means just what we mean – the time required for one revolution of the earth on its axis.” However, Archer (1994: 196) quoted above, writes that the literal “six twenty-four-hour days…[is] a questionable deduction…” Archer’s position is in agreement with men like D.A. Young who writes “continued promotion of such ideas [six literal days of creation] will in the long run damage the credibility of Christianity and thus hinder our evangelistic and apologetic efforts” (1982: 10). Thus, the lines are drawn and the evidence, books and proponents for the varying interpretations mount.

There are many theories which attempt to explain the “day” issue. For the interest of space, I will restrict this article to a discussion of the most frequently mentioned four: the “literal day” theory; the “day-age” theory; the “literal-day-with-gaps” theory; and, the “revelatory day” theory.1 However, these are not the only ones, only those that appear most often in the literature. In any event, most others are variants of one of the four.

The “literal day” theorists argue the yom of Genesis 1 was a literally day of 24 hour hours in length. The “day-age” theorists believe that yom in Genesis 1:5 and following refers to a long period of indefinite duration. “Literal-day-with-gaps” theorists suggest that the days may have been 24 hours long, but there were long gaps

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 38

between the days – time gaps necessary to explain current evolutionary models. Finally, advocates of the “revelatory day” theory argue that Genesis 1:5 and following verses do not pertain to days of creation but to days of revelation. What follows are a few of the principal points each of these schools use to make their case and some brief observations.

2nd Day Separation Of The Upper And Lower Waters By Space

Supporters of the “literal-day” theory interpret the text in the most obvious way. Among other literary arguments, they point out the cardinal instead of the ordinal number is used with yom in Genesis 1:5. Cassuto (1989: 30), quoting in part from Nahmanides, explains: “First implies precedence over another in number or grading, when both are in existence, but in our case there was only one day, for the second had not yet been created” [emphasis in original]. Morris (1976: 55–56) describes that in the Hebrew Bible, yom, without exception,

never means “period.” It normally means either a day (in the 24 hour sense), or else the daylight portion of the 24 hours (“day” as distinct from “night”). It may occasionally be used in the sense of indefinite time (e.g., “in the time of the judges”), but never as a definite period of time with a specific beginning and ending. Furthermore, it is not used even in this indefinite sense except when the context clearly indicates that the literal meaning is not intended.

Morris (1976: 56) also argues each yom in Genesis 1 had distinct boundaries and was one in a series of days – criteria never present in Old Testament writings unless literal days are intended. He concludes that “the writer of Genesis was trying to guard in every way possible against any of his readers deriving the notion of non literal days from his record.” One final point is “literal day” theorists argue Exodus 20:11 asserts that within “six days the Lord made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.”

With the advent of the science of geology in the last century, Bible-believing scientists were confronted with

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 39

a problem of harmonizing Scripture with the new science. Their dilemma was, simply, that geology argues for vast amounts of time for the formation of the earth. However, Genesis spoke of the entire creation taking place in six days. Thus, the compromise between the two was the emergence of the “day-age” theorists, a position which is widely held by many Christians and seminaries. Rather than have one day mean a 24 hour day, the proponents hold the “day” could have been a million years. Each “day” is a period of time, or whatever time seems necessary by evolutionary standards, to complete the creation work described in Genesis 1. Many problems remain, however, such as how to reconcile the order of the days of Genesis with geological theory. Marsden (1984: 101) writes,

3rd Day Creation Of Plant Life

Genesis, for instance, had light created on day one, but the sun not until day four. Such problems, nonetheless, could be resolved in keeping with the latest scientific theories. The nebular hypothesis of Pierre Simon Laplace, for instance, posited the origins of the planets by the cooling of the nebular gases that had surrounded the sun. Evangelicals, adopting Laplace’s theory, argued that in such a view, light would be apparent on the first day, but from the perspective of earth the sun would not appear until the gases had cleared by day four.

The “day-age” theorists point out that since the sun did not appear until day four, the days of creation, especially the first three, could have been longer than 24 hours. This, for example, would explain how, on the third day, “the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit” (Gn 1:12), an activity which would seem to have taken longer than one 24 hour period. Scriptural support for this is the use of yom in Genesis 2:4 where “day” refers to the entire creation account itself (Young 1982: 58). They also point to Hebrews 4:1–11 which appears to refer to the seventh day of creation as a period of indefinite length. With this as a basis, the “day-age” theorists posit that

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 40

there are six periods of creation recorded in Genesis 1, each period ending with the word, yom. These periods are: Genesis 1:2–5 (the formation of light); Genesis 1 :6–8 (the formation of an expanse); Genesis 1:9–13 (the receding of the waters to allow the emergence of land which made plant life possible); Genesis 1:14–19 (direct sunlight and accurate observation of the moon, stars, sun, to take place); Genesis 1:20–23 (God developed marine life and introduced flying creatures); Genesis 1:24–26 (land animals culminating in the creation of man).2 Still, “day-age” is not without its problems, the primary one being theological. The theory, in effect, charges God with:

4th Day Creation Of The Sun Moon And Stars

purposeless variation, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence, with the preservation of the strong and extermination of the weak, of natural disasters of all kinds, rampant disease, disorder and decay, and, above all, with death (Morris 1974: 188).

A variant of the “day-age” theory is the “gap” theory, popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible (published in 1909 and revised in 1917) which endorsed it in its marginal notes. As Eve and Harrold (1991: 47) report, the theory is well-known today because of popular advocates such as televangelists Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker and the late Herbert W. Armstrong. This position believes an undefined, but considerable, period elapsed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. Thus, sufficient time could have existed between the two verses for geological ages to occur and a fossil record to be formed. This was a pre-Adamic world that perished, and is therefore omitted from the Genesis account, because the Bible is concerned with God’s relationship with mankind. After the “gap” between the two verses, the earth was formed in accordance with the “day-age” theory.

A compromise between the first two positions mentioned above is presented by the “literal-day-with-gap” theorists. This theory contends that the days of creation

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 41

do not need to be consecutive and they could have been separated by long ages. Each day may be literal, but the phenomena which God had been creating had, at length, come into being when the literal day occurred. Davis (1975: 53), in quoting John Urquhart, reports that with the exception of the sixth day, yom “has the indefinite form.” Urquhart thus concluded the days were not consecutive but were separated by long periods of time. In other words, each “day” arrived when the events previously described were finished. As Davis (1975: 53–54) reports, “this viewpoint has very few adherents because it severely strains the Hebrew text.”

5th Day Creation Of Fish And Fowl

A somewhat unconventional approach to interpreting Genesis 1 and yom is the “revelatory theory,” or, as it is sometimes referred to, “poetic theory” (Eve and Harrold 1991: 48). It is so-called “revelatory” because believers of this theory propose Genesis 1–11 is not a straight narrative account, but the report by Moses of a “revelatory” vision given to him by God. This revelation happened over a six day period. Davis (1975: 54), quoting B. Ramm, explains “the six days are pictorial-revelatory days, not literal days nor age days. The days are means of communicating to man the great fact that God is creator, and that He is creator of all.” Genesis 20:11 (“…in six days the Lord made heaven and earth…”) seems to contradict this theory in that God “made,” not “revealed,” His creation. Davis (1975: 54) goes on to critique this theory by pointing out the use of visions to reveal the past is rare with only one possible exception, Daniel 7:1ff. He concludes “past events are normally revealed in literal, historical narratives, not in [a] series of visions which can be manipulated and interpreted as indefinite time periods.”

What is one to make of the various theories for interpreting the “day” of Genesis 1 and 2? Reviewing the brief descriptions of the theories presented here reveals two schools. The first school contains those who hold a literal interpretation of the Biblical account (“literal-day,” “revelatory” theorists, etc.). Although elements in this school can accept differing ages for the earth, none are willing to extend the earth’s age to more

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 42

than 100, 000 years. The other school (consisting of the “gap,” “literal-day-with-gap,” “day-age,” theorists, etc.) almost unanimously agree the earth is millions of years old. This second school appears to be a response to the evolutionary hypothesis and the pressure of scientific opinion. The issues separating the two schools do not appear to be linguistic or philological and, in fact, the philological arguments seem to heavily favor the literalist school. The gulf of opinion is over the interpretation of modern science, specifically evolution, and how such information is to be integrated with the Scriptural record since evolution establishes ages for the earth up to billions of years. Archer (1994: 198) asks, rhetorically, “can such an enormous time interval (five billion years or more, according to some estimates—made, of course, on uniformitarian assumptions) be reconciled with the six creative days of Genesis 1?” His answer is that it depends on the significance of the word yom and offers three positions for consideration:

(1) yom as a literal 24 hour day.

(2) yom as a revelational day.

(3) yom as a geologic age.

These three positions correspond with the theories discussed earlier in this article. Position (2), “revelational day,” is the easiest to critique for it provides a compromise for those who hold to the literal interpretation of “day” as a 24 hour day. It permits them to also accept the evolutionary explanation of the creation as taking millions of years.

6th Day Creation Of Animals And Man

Position (3), “geologic age,” seems to provide an easy way for its supporters to ignore the philological evidence of the literal account in Genesis 1 and 2, or dismiss the first two chapters of Genesis altogether. In postulating the “gap theory,” or the “day-age” theory, proponents can still acknowledge faith in the Bible (or “most” of it) and at the same time accept current scientific explanations for what appears to be scientific data which support a very ancient earth. Still, holders of this position, in my opinion, are not “home free” theologically. In order to accept the “gap” theory, the supporters must also accept geologic ages. Geologic

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 43

ages are dated by the presence of fossils in rocks. Thus, acceptance of the geologic ages implicitly involves acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis of Genesis 1 and 2. On this point, Morris (1974: 189) writes,

the gap theory…really does not face the evolution issue at all, but merely pigeon-holes it in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the method of slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it, and then use the method of special creation to re-create the same forms He had just destroyed.

Position (1), the “literal” position, presents the most difficulty in providing an explanation for the literal day and the apparent long expanse of time which the preponderance of scientists hold as necessary for work of creation. However, there are many reputable scientists who have proffered explanations which harmonize the literal days of Genesis 1 with hard science. These scholars have been labeled “creation scientists” and their theories as “creation science.” One of the first recent books to be published which argued on a scholarly basis the tenets of creation science, and widely recognized as authoritative by all parties, was The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris (1965). The authors, primarily the geologist Morris, presented a solid, scientifically sound, geologically based, defense of the Biblical account by attacking the presumption of “uniformitarianism.” Since it is not the purpose of this article to expand the discussion of yom to include a report on creation-science, suffice it to say that many reputable scientists have accepted the Genesis literal six-day creation account and integrated their beliefs with science without compromising the basic laws of their scientific disciplines.

It seems to me that the heart of the issue is theological, not scientific. If one accepts the Bible as Divinely inspired, then the Bible’s account of the creation must be acknowledged. Genesis was Scripture for Jesus, and it should be Scripture for modern Christians, too. The Bible teaches that God pronounced His creation as “very good.” Further, Romans 8:22 teaches that “groaning and travailing in paid” resulted from man’s sin and God’s curse. To assume otherwise would place God in the position of being author of evil, violence, decay and death, on a worldwide scale, perhaps for billions of years! That certainly is not the teaching of either the New Testament or the Old Testament.

The Bible teaches that God wants each of us to decide whether to accept Him, freely, and without force. He has provided a tremendous amount of evidence to encourage our faith. That said, it should be noted that He has also not yet provided such conclusive scientific data that makes it impossible to believe. Morris (1974: 193) summarizes this idea by stating that:

He provides everything needed in this present time to make us ready to enjoy His presence and fellowship throughout eternity. Furthermore, He has even told us about all these provisions in His written revelation to man, the Holy Scriptures.

It is sad that the lines are drawn so tightly between the “day-age” theorists

BSP 11:2 (Spring 1998) p. 44

and their opponents and there are no signs that the tensions are dissipating. Davis (1975: 56) makes the point that for Christians, “one does not want to reject obvious empirical evidence, on the other hand, one must never make all truth subject to the scientific method, which is incapable of verifying essential, supernatural events such as Christ’s virgin birth, His death and resurrection, and His second coming.”

For me, it seems best to interpret Scripture in accordance with the rules of hermeneutics and historical, grammatical, research. If there is a conflict with empirical science, I assume the validity of the interpretation until irrefutable evidence is produced to refute it. Again, quoting Davis (1975: 56–57), “biblical truth must not be sacrificed at the altar of scientific acceptability,” for if it is, we are “left with no hope whatsoever and are reduced to a world and life view of empty materialism.”


Achtemeier, P. J. (Gen. ed.)

1986 Harper’s Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Archer, G. L., Jr.

1994 A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody.

1982 Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan.

Cassuto, U.

1989 A Commentary on the book of Genesis (Part I: From Adam to Noah). Jerusalem: Magnes.

Davis, J. J.

1975 Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.

Eve, R. A., and Harrold, F. B.

1991 The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne.

Harris, R. L., ed.

1980 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Vol. 1). Chicago: Moody.

Marsden, G. M.

1984 Understanding Fundamentalist Views of Science. Pp. 95–116 in Science and Creationism, ed. A. Montagu. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morris, H. M.

1974 The Troubled Waters of Evolution. San Diego: Creation-Life.

1976 The GenesisRrecord: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.

New American Standard Bible.

1972 The Lockman Foundation. Ross, A. P.

1988 Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.

Simpson, C. A.

1952 The Book of Genesis: Introduction and Exegesis. Pp. 439–829 in The Interpreters’ Bible, G. Buttrick, ed. New York: Abingdon.

Whitcomb, J. C. and Morris, H. M.

1965 The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Young D. A.

1982 Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan.