The day-age theory is an interpretation of the creation account in Genesis that asserts that the six days of creation are symbolic of much longer periods of time. According to this view, the word “day” (Hebrew: yom) in Genesis 1 does not refer to a literal 24-hour day but is symbolic of a long age of time. Proponents of the day-age theory believe that this view harmonizes the biblical creation account with modern scientific theories about the age of the earth.
The primary biblical basis for the day-age theory is the meaning of the Hebrew word for “day” (yom). While yom most commonly refers to a literal 24-hour day, the word is sometimes used in Scripture in a figurative way to refer to an indefinite period of time (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). Genesis 2:4 refers to the whole creation week as a “day.” So proponents argue that interpreting the days of Genesis 1 figuratively allows for an old earth.
Scientific evidence for an old earth is also cited as support for the day-age view. Geological studies indicate the earth is billions of years old, which seems difficult to reconcile with six literal days. The day-age view allows Christians to harmonize Scripture with modern science by proposing that the “days” of Genesis 1 represent long ages.
Specific reasons given by supporters of the day-age theory include:
- The Hebrew word for day (yom) can mean an indefinite period of time, not just a 24-hour day.
- The days in Genesis 1 lack the phrase “there was evening and there was morning” on the seventh day, implying it is still continuing.
- Adam not being created until the sixth day shows evolution could have taken place over a long period before humans appeared.
- Genesis 2:4 summarizes the entire creation week as one “day.”
- Scientific evidence for an old earth makes six literal days problematic.
- The day-age view allows for harmony between science and the Bible.
There are also a number of objections that have been raised against the day-age theory by more conservative Bible scholars:
- In every other instance in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for day (yom) preceded by a number refers to a literal 24-hour day.
- The days in Genesis 1 are bounded by “evening and morning,” suggesting literal days.
- Exodus 20:11 states God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day, using the same Hebrew word (yom).
- Plants were created on day 3 but the sun on day 4, indicating 24-hour days, not ages.
- The logical order and tight chronology of Genesis 1 also point to literal days.
- Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as literal historical figures, not mythical metaphors.
So while the day-age theory aims to reconcile science and Scripture, critics argue it undermines the historical accuracy of Genesis and forces Scripture into conformity with scientific theories. They point out that rather than taking the Bible plainly, it interprets the text in a figurative way to accommodate modern secular dating methods.
The day-age theory was popularized in the 19th century following advances in geology suggesting an old earth. Prominent scientists such as geologist Hugh Miller, Harvard geologist William Sollas, and physicist Alan Hayward advocated versions of it. In the 20th century, Roman Catholic priest Pietro Ratti strongly promoted it, influencing many modern theologians and Christian scientists.
Several variations of the day-age view have emerged:
- Age-day theory – The ages are the days. Each creation “day” lasted for millions of years.
- Alternating age-day theory – The days are literal 24-hour days alternating with ages. For example, God created light on a literal day, then there was an age before separating the waters on another literal day.
- Multiple gap theory – The days are literal but there are gaps between the days representing ages. A variation is the “intermittent day” theory.
- Revelatory days view – The days of Genesis 1 relate to divine revelation given to Moses, not literal time periods.
- Framework view – The days are a literary/theological framework, not literal days or ages.
Overall, there are wide-ranging views on Genesis 1 even among Christians who support long ages rather than literal days. But while the day-age theory attempts to reconcile science and Scripture, critics argue it undermines biblical authority by denying a plain reading of the text. Understanding the meaning of the Hebrew word for day and letting Scripture interpret Scripture are key to resolving debates over the days of creation. In the end, Christians of good will can disagree on whether the “days” of Genesis are literal or symbolic.
The day-age theory sparked debates among Christians as early as the 18th and 19th centuries as geologists began proposing an old earth. The famous nineteenth-century Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield took differing views – Hodge supporting literal days and Warfield allowing the possibility of long ages. Prominent early proponents of forms of the day-age view included Scottish geologist Hugh Miller, Irish physicist John Joly, and pioneering American evangelist Billy Sunday.
In the early twentieth century, the day-age view gained wider support. The famous Fundamentals booklets published between 1910 and 1915 did not insist on literal days and allowed room for figurative interpretations. In the 1920s, Roman Catholic priest Pietro Ratti strongly promoted the day-age view, influencing many modern theologians. In the 1960s, the theory was advocated by physicist Alan Hayward. In the 1990s, astronomer Hugh Ross made the day-age view a feature of his old earth creationist ministry Reasons to Believe.
While young earth groups almost exclusively favor literal 24-hour days, among old earth creationists there is allowance for both literal and symbolic views of the creation days. Old earth creationist ministries such as Reasons to Believe (Ross) and the Discovery Institute (Behe, Meyer) support forms of the day-age theory. Reasons to Believe promotes the age-day view while the Discovery Institute tends to allow various old-earth interpretations. BioLogos, another old earth group, suggests the Bible “does not take a position on the age of the earth.”
The day-age theory sparked debate even at the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial” over evolution in schools. Defending evolution, lawyer Dudley Field Malone declared “All truth is one. Science is truth and religion is truth…” To this, attorney William Jennings Bryan famously countered that truth does not require such convoluted explanations, stating “The Truth is simple…and the light shines more clearly through the simple account found in Genesis.”
While Bryan upheld literal days, he was willing to accept gaps between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, a variation sometimes combined with day-age views. Clarence Darrow, also a lawyer at the trial defending evolution, stated in his questioning of Bryan that he had no objection to Bryan’s acceptance of gaps “if you wish to take the creation of Genesis in that way.”
So while the trial centered on evolution in schools, the testimony revealed nuances in how even creationist figures approached Genesis. Although the lawyers disagreed on origins, they granted latitude when it came to interpreting the creation days – revealing debates over Genesis are complex even among creationists.
In the mid-20th century, evangelist Billy Graham was open to the day-age theory and did not insist Genesis had to be 6 literal 24-hour days. In a 1981 newspaper column, Graham wrote about meeting an astrophysicist who presented cosmological models indicating a universe billions of years old. Graham concluded “while the Bible does not contradict this, it does not confirm it absolutely either.” He regarded the Genesis days as unspecified periods of time rather than 24 hours.
Graham exemplified how modern evangelicals sought to reconcile Scripture with mainstream science. He held that Christians had latitude when interpreting Genesis 1, stating: “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say.”
Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have traditionally been open to non-literal views of Genesis. Augustine in the 4th century spoke of creation happening in a single instant and suggested God “created all things together as it were in one stroke.” Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century said “the six days signify not the temporal succession of the works of creation but its ordered distinction.” The early church fathers often focused on spiritual meanings rather than literal chronology when interpreting Genesis.
Modern popes have articulated positions in line with the day-age theory. Pope Pius XII in 1950 endorsed the view that the Genesis days represent time periods of indeterminate length. Pope John Paul II in 1996 likewise affirmed cosmological evidence for billions of years and stated the creation account “does not contain strictly historical indications.” Current Catholic catechisms teach that Scripture is inerrant in spiritual truth, not necessarily scientific accuracy.
Among mainline Protestant denominations, the day-age view gained widespread acceptance in the 20th century as geological evidence for an ancient earth grew. Most evangelical Christian colleges teach that the age of the earth is an open question and do not insist Genesis requires a young earth. Books by day-age proponents, such as Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox, have become popular in evangelical circles.
Yet divisions remain on interpreting Genesis even among conservative believers. Christian apologist Norman Geisler wrote that “orthodox Jews and Christians have always interpreted Genesis 1 as six literal days” while Hugh Ross claims “all orthodox Jewish rabbis believed that God alone knows the age of the universe.” Their contrasting quotes reveal ongoing debates about Old Testament perspectives.
Recent creationist movements have sparked renewed advocacy for literal days. Young earth groups such as Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research teach Genesis means 24 ordinary days. They argue anything else imposes outside ideas onto Scripture. Many believe holding to literal days, rejecting macroevolution, and teaching a young earth are defining beliefs of Christian orthodoxy. This has widened the divide with old earth views.
Reasons to Believe founder Hugh Ross argues the day-age view is not a compromise but the plainest reading of Genesis 1. He contends nature accurately communicates God’s glory and supports his view that the days of creation represent long ages. Old earth creationists say they take Genesis and modern science at face value rather than forcing either into a preconceived framework.
While most debate surrounds the length of the creation days, some Christians maintain the focus should be on God as Creator, not time frames. Fuller Seminary professor John Walton suggests Genesis 1 is saying God assigned functions to the cosmos, not necessarily recounting material origins. This view proposes Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology teaching God’s purpose for creation rather than scientific chronology – a theological and literary text, not a scientific treatise.
The day-age theory illustrates how Christians seek to integrate Scripture and mainstream science on the biblical account of origins. At the same time, it reveals deep divisions over Genesis persist. Understanding the literary genre and Hebrew language of Genesis are central to reaching conclusions. While emotions often run high in such debates, room can exist for various reasoned positions, even if all questions are not fully resolved.