Does the Word "Day" in the Genesis Creation Account Refer to a Literal Twenty-Four Hour Period?

Young Earth Creationists believe that the word “day” in the Bible’s creation account refers to a literal twenty-four hour period. But, this belief is without exegetical evidence and ignores the facts from Scripture.

First, they ignore that while the Hebrew word YOHM can refer to a literal day, it can also be used to refer to a time period. Lexicons show that the word ‘day’ can be used for “time,” “time of light,” “a division of time,” “lifetime,” even “year.”

As “A Religious Encyclopaedia” (vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

1.) First, a 24-hour day reference would be impossible for the first three days. This is because, while the sun and moon were evidently created before this, the fourth day was the first that the sun and moon were “placed” so as to cause a “division between the day and the night...as signs for...days and years” (1:14). The 24 hour day is dependent on the sun’s relationship with the Earth. Only on the fourth day was the sun “established” (‘ASA) (1:16) or “set” (NATAN) (1:17) so as to cause this division.

2.) Next, if we exclude the 9 references to the seven creative days, out of the remaining seven references to “day” in the first two chapters of Genesis only one of them can refer to a 24 hour period (1:14b). In 1:5,14a,16 and 18, only the period of “light” is called “Day” (cf. Jn.11:10).

3.) The seventeenth and eighteenth occurrences of the word makes it clear that “day” cannot be taken literally (2:17; 3:5). Jehovah said that “in the day you eat from it you will positively die”. Adam did not die within 24 hours but lived on for hundreds of years. Obviously the word “day” means a period of time here.

4.) The description of the events during each ‘day’ would logically require far more than 24 hours (1:11-12; 1:20-25; 2:5- 9). Those who adamantly insist on a literal interpretation for ‘day’ inconsistently claim that the “planting” “growing,” “watering” and etc. are not to be taken literally, but rather miraculously occurred instantaneously. God noted that it was not good for Adam to continue by himself. If the sixth “day” was only 24 hours long why would there be a concern for Adam becoming lonely? The context indicates that for a lengthy time Adam developed a longing as he saw that there was no complement for him (2:18-20). His exclamation indicated Adam had anticipated Eve for some time: “This is at last...” (2:23).

All these activities do not seem to be describing the last part of a literal 24 hour day!

5.) Further, Gen 2:4 uses the Hebrew word TOLEDAH which means “history” (generations) to describe the whole period of creating the heavens and earth. TOLEDAH never means a short period. This whole history or time period in its entirety is then called a “day” (YOHM). This use of the word “day” to refer to all six creative days and also the prior creation of “heaven and earth” conclusively demonstrates that the word day denotes a period of time, not just a 24 hour period.

[6].) Next we have the implications of Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. These two Scriptures do not tell us how long a creative “day” was, but they do tell us that God’s “days” cannot be measured by human standards and thus limited to 24 hours!

[7].) Last, but not least, is the obvious continuance of the seventh “day.” Every day but the seventh was ended with the refrain “There was an evening and morning a xx day.” This omission could only lead to the conclusion that the seventh day did not end back then. Further confirming this, we have the verbal statements in 2:2 & 3, correctly rendered by the NWT as, “he proceeded to rest” and “he has been resting.”

The above examination of Scripture makes it clear that we cannot force God’s creative “day” into a 24 hour period. This would be like saying that God must have hands like ours because this is what most other uses of the word “hand” means! The word “day” is obviously used anthropomorphically (or poetically) in the first chapter of Genesis! The meaning of “day” is simply “a measured length of time.” Only the context can tell us how the writer used this term, whether in reference to “daylight,” “24hrs,” a “lifetime,” or some “time period."

(Source: This is the chosen best answer given by Bar_Anerges to this question.)

Please also see:

How Long Were the Creative Days? (lc pp. 24-28; Science and the Genesis Account; Watchtower Online Library)

ARE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CREATIONISTS? ("Are Jehovah's Witnesses Creationists?"; g 9/06 p. 3; Watchtower Online Library)

Day - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why Does the New World Translation Bible Say, "God's Active Force" at Genesis 1:2?

In the New World Translation (NWT) Bible, it says at Genesis 1:2,

"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."

Yet many translations do not say "God's active force" at Genesis 1:2.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1-2-compare.html

However, the New World Translation's "active force" for the Hebrew RUACH is both accurate and appropriate for Genesis 1:2 because the way that the Bible uses the term "holy spirit" indicates that it is God's active force that He uses to accomplish a variety of His purposes.

Even many trinitarian scholars will admit this:

"In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of the Trinity. The Spirit is conceived as an impersonal power by which God effects his will through Christ." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 344, Virgilius Ferm, 1945 ed.

Using Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4 and Psalm 33:6 as its basis, Swete writes about the "Spirit" in the Old Testament:

"The Spirit of God is the vital power which belongs to the Divine Being, and is seen to be operative in the world and in men. It is the Divine Energy which is the origin of all created life, especially of human existence and the faculties of human nature." Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (1909), page 2.

The commentator clearly sees the Spirit as a force, not a person in this verse.

About the translation of Genesis 1:2:

"There is little to commend "a mighty wind" (NEB, Speiser, von Rad); in the relatively few passages where "God" is used as a superlative, the context usually makes it clear. The sense is excellently given by "the power of God" (GNB)." A Bible Commentary for Today, General Editor G. C. D. Howley (1973), page 135.

Note that this Commentary states, "The sense is excellently given by "the power of God" (GNB)."

"There is apparent a development in the direction of hypostatization of the Spirit, not in the sense that it is conceived as a person but as a substantial source of force and activity. It is the creative force of Yahweh (Gn. 1:2; Jb 33:5)" Dictionary of the Bible, McKenzie (1965), page 841.

This Bible Dictionary agrees with the NWT that in Genesis 1:2, the Spirit is the "creative force of Yahweh."

"The Spirit brooding over the primeval waters (Gn. 1:2) and creating man (Gn. 2:7), the Spirit who garnishes the heavens (Jb 26:13), sustains animal life and renews the face of the earth (Ps. 54:30), is the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and power." The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531.

The ruach is not a person, the basic meaning in Genesis 1:2 (and the other scriptures quoted) is shown to be "the outgoing divine energy and power."

Additional Reading:

Genesis 1:2 New World Translation - "..and God's active force was moving to and fro..." (In Defense of the New World Translation)

Holy Spirit - Links to Information (Search For Bible Truths)

The Holy Spirit—God's Active Force (Insight-2 pp. 1017-1027; Watchtower Online Library)

Does Matthew 1:22, 23 Really Imply That Jesus is God?

No, Matthew 1:22, 23 does not imply that Jesus is God.

A fairly common trinitarian “proof” that “Jesus is God” uses the meanings of personal names. It is very true that personal names were extremely important to God and to his people as recorded in the Bible. The meanings of their names were often carefully selected by their parents and were sometimes changed during their lifetimes because of changing circumstances.

But honestly, should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”? No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”. - Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13).[3] But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God. And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 1:1; 35:21; 36:23; Ezra 1:3; Is. 8:8, 10; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23. (Also see “Immanuel” in the Insight books.)

This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.

Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me - ASV.

Even the widely acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, admits:

“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.

For more, see:

This identity of Jesus Christ as Immanuel did not mean he was the incarnation of God (Insight-1 pp. 1187-1189; Watchtower online Library)

Does Matthew 1:23 indicate that Jesus when on earth was God? (rs p. 209-p. 220; Watchtower Online Library)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Trinity Proof Texts (Examining the Trinity)

Scripture Index

Was Jesus Impaled on a Cross or an Upright Stake? Should the Cross Be Used in Worship to God?

Many are surprised to read in many Bibles that Jesus was hung upon a "tree" at Acts 5:30.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/5-30-compare.html

This is because the word "Stau·ros´ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole:

"The Greek word for `cross' (Stau·ros´) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution." - Douglas' New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under "Cross," page 253.

And noted Greek scholar W. E. Vine mentions the following concerning this subject:

"STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256. Vine also goes on to describe the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ's impalement.

The Pagan History of the Cross

Not only does the Greek word Stau·ros´ not mean a "cross" made of two timbers, but the cross "was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long before the Christian era." - Chamber's Encyclopaedia, 1969 ed.

The pagan Romans used the symbol of the cross before and during the early days of Christianity: "These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god ... and are first seen on a coin of Juolius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar's heir (Augustus), 20 B.C." - The Companion Bible.

And Prof. G.F. Snyder points out that "The sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known culture. .... The universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." - p. 27, Ante Pacem - Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantinte.

The Baptist NT scholar W.E. Vine wrote about "Cross":

"STAUROS ... denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten on a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had its origins in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." - p. 248, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, 1983 printing.

"In ancient Israel, unfaithful Jews wept over the death of the false god Tammuz. Jehovah spoke of what they were doing as being a `detestable thing.' (Ezek. 8:13, 14) According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (Gen. 10:8-10; Jer. 50:29) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God." - Reasoning From the Scriptures, "Cross".

The Cross - A Form of Idolatry 

But even if we ignore the evidence and assume that Jesus was killed on a cross, the most important thing is that the cross should not be venerated. Whether it was an upright single torture stake, a cross, an arrow, a lance, or a knife, should such an instrument really be used in worship?

Not only should the thought of venerating the very instrument of Jesus' execution be offensive in itself, but the symbol of the cross is also a pagan symbol...idolatry that God commands us to not even "touch":

“What agreement does God’s temple have with idols?...'Quit touching the unclean thing.'" (2 Corinthians 6:16, 17)

“Guard yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)

"You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Exodus 20:4-5)

Long before the Christian era, crosses were used by the ancient Babylonians as symbols in their worship of the fertility god Tammuz. The use of the cross spread into Egypt, India, Syria, and China. Then, centuries later, the Israelites adulterated their worship of Jehovah God with acts of veneration to the false god Tammuz. The Bible refers to this form of worship as a ‘detestable thing.’ - Ezekiel 8:13, 14.

First-century Christians, however, held the sacrificial death of Christ in high esteem. Likewise today, although the instrument used to torture and kill Jesus is not to be worshipped, true Christians commemorate Jesus’ death as the means by which God provides salvation to imperfect humans. (Matthew 20:28)

For more, see:

Cross - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship (What Does the Bible Really Teach?; JW.ORG)

Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross? - What Does the Cross Symbolize? (w11 3/1 pp. 18-20; Watchtower Online Library)

Should Icons Be Used in Worship? (g05 5/8 pp. 20-21; Watchtower Online Library)

Matt. 25:46 and the New World Translation - Does Kolasis Here Mean "Cutting Off" or "Punishment"?

Some condemn the New World Translation's use of kolasis as `cutting off' at Matt. 25:46 when they say that the word `punishment' is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it.

This can easily be checked out! And easily proven false!

Dr. Young in his popular Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 995, defines this word, kolasis, as "a pruning, restraining". And although Strong's Exhaustive Concordance merely tells us kolasis derives from the source words kolazo and kolos (which means "to curtail"), The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance tells us that kolasis comes from kolazo and kolos and that kolos means "docked" ("dock .... 1. to cut off" - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).

And what does highly respected NT Greek expert W. E. Vine say about the source word (kolazo) for kolasis in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 903 ?: "kolazo primarily denotes to curtail, prune, dock (from kolos, docked)."

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon says that kolazo is "Properly, to curtail, dock, prune" - p. 441, Liddell & Scott, Oxford, 1994 printing.

At Matt. 25:46 it seems clear from context that "death" (or "cutting off") is the proper interpretation. Notice that "everlasting kolasis" is contrasted here with "everlasting life". Certainly "death" is the most appropriate contrast to "life". (Even if we insisted on a "punishment" meaning here, there is no reason why that "punishment" could not be understood as death as context demands in this verse. - compare the use of kolasis at Ezek. 18:30 in the ancient Greek Septuagint: the "punishment" here is also to be understood as death as the context of the entire chapter clearly shows. - Also note the everlasting punishment meted out at 2 Thess. 1:9 and the contrast of life with destruction at Jn 3:16 and Matt. 7:13, 14.)

Even the Presbyterian minister and anti-Watchtower writer R. H. Countess ADMITS that "the root meaning of [kolasis] is that of `checking' in the realm of trees..." - p. 81, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, 1987 ed. However, it is more accurately described (as shown above) as pruning of trees and vines and docking of animals (tails, horns, etc.).

But if we are referring to those persons or things which are pruned, docked, or cut off (the `branches,' `horns,' etc.), we are speaking of things that are no longer living but dead. These things are not being `corrected'. It is the remaining body (which loses that which was `pruned') that is being `corrected' through the destruction of that `limb,' `branch,' `horn,' etc.

This figurative use of cutting off branches and completely annihilating them is clear in John 15:5, 6 -

"I am the vine, you are the branches. .... If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is thrown away as a mere branch and is dried up; then it is picked up and thrown into the fire and burned up [kaiw, kaio]" - CBW.

Obviously when a branch is cut or broken off from the vine (or tree), it immediately begins to die. By the time it is dried up it is dead. Then, after it is dead, it is completely burned up, annihilated. Such figurative examples leave no place for the eternal torment concept favored by those who insist on the more ambiguous "eternal punishment" rendering.

The word used in this verse is kaio (kaiw in NT Greek) and defined by Thayer as: "to burn; consume with fire: pass. Jn. xv. 6; 1 Co. xiii. 3." – p. 319, #2545, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.

Popular NT scholar Dr. William Barclay writes about this verse: "The only thing that could be done with the wood pruned out of a vine was to make a bonfire of it and destroy it [not torture it]." – p. 174, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, Revised Ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, 1975.

One of Christendom's most respected Bible dictionaries, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology ("Indispensable for advanced theological students and scholars as well as for ordinary Bible students." - Christianity Today) agrees:

"Jesus did not teach, like Plato and others, that the soul was intrinsically immortal and that it would necessarily go on after death. References to the eternal fire (Matt. 18:8; cf. Mk 9:43-48; Jude 7) are necessarily figurative

.....

"Eternal judgment is referred to in Heb. 6:2 and 2 Thess. 1:9. This, like the idea of eternal fire, does not necessarily imply that those concerned go on being judged or continue to be consumed. If the metaphor of fire is to be pressed at all, it would imply that the fire of righteousness continues to burn, but that what is consumed once is consumed for good (cf. also Paul's observation about works being consumed by fire, 1 Cor. 3:15)." - p. 99, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

You will find that the New World Translation is one of the very few Bibles that actually translates this word (kolasis) properly in spite of the rarity of occurrences of that word in the New Testament.

Also see:

Cutting Off - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

Cutting Off  (Insight
-1 pp. 562-563; Watchtower Online Library)

Matthews 25:46. KOLASIS : "cutting-off"- New World Translation (IN Defense of the NWT)

Deut. 22:5 - What is The PRINCIPLE of this Law About not Wearing Clothing of the Opposite Sex?

Deuteronomy 22:5 in the KJV states:

"A woman must not wear men's clothing, and a man must not wear women's clothing. The LORD [Jehovah] your God detests people who do this."

What is Deuteronomy 22:5 Really Saying and Does This Still Apply to Christians Today?

When this law was given, both men and women wore robes. Yet there was a difference with the style of the robes. It is similar today. There are men's pants and there are women's pants.

The principle of the law at Deut. 22:5 was for a man to WANT to look like a man and for a woman to WANT to look like a woman. An example has been given that if a woman were to put on a worn-out pair of her husband’s trousers to do a job around the house she wouldn't be going against the evident purpose of the law, namely, to prevent confusion of sexual identity and sexual abuses.

But even though the law itself is no longer binding since it is from the Mosaic Law and Christians today are no longer under the Mosaic law, the same principle mentioned above still stands today.

Also see:

Dress (Deut. 22:5) Insight-1 pp. 652-656; Watchtower Online Library)

11/2/72 Watchtower, Questions from Readers

Mosaic Law - Links to Information (Search For Bible Truths)

Race and Ethnicity - Does God Have a Favorite Nationality?

Notice what the apostle Peter wrote about how God feels:

“The truth I have now come to realise, is that God does not have favourites, but that anybody of any nationality who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him.’” (Acts 10:34, 35, Jerusalem Bible)

The Bible says that all peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family and that "all nations" were “made out of one man. (Acts 17:26)

The apostle Paul admonished Christians and practicers of Bible principles to do "nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind considering that the others are superior to YOU." (Phil. 2:3) This certainly would not involve viewing those of another race as a so-called “inferior” race.

Recommended Related Articles:

Race and Ethnicity: We Are All One Family (g 11/09 pp. 22-23; JW.ORG)

What Is the Solution to Ethnic Intolerance? (w07 7/1 pp. 3-6; Watchtower Online Library)

Where Do the Different Races Come From? (Search For Bible Truths)

Is a Classless Society Really Possible? (w02 1/1 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)