With that initial impetus, but having confidence in the Bible, I see that Genesis 1 & 2 do suggest that the days are not 24 hour days. David Hall says that "the Hebrew language itself neither demands nor suggests that the days were eons." He attacks a straw man. Neither does the text define the days as 24 hour days. And the text need not specifically express eons or suggest eons to suggest something other than a 24 hour day - which may be eons. And the text does suggest that the days are not 24 hour days.

There has never been, until the recent couple centuries of uniformitarian beliefs, any interpretations that "day = age" in orthodox Christianity. The ancient Jews were strangers to that novel interpretation. They understood "day" as "day". The current "aeon" view, when it is found among conservatives who should know better, is the mother of concession and embarrassed conformity, not necessity. We need to consider that if we are ashamed of God's Word in this present evil age, God will be ashamed of us. The pastor signs his cavilling post "student of both the Bible and creation". If that is the case, he has yet to prove, in any part of his long letter, from what part of the Bible (since he put "Bible" first) did he learn that the Creation is aeons old? He uses only fallen logic and skewered analogies. Where is there a single verse that begins to suggest that the universe is ancient (aeons)?

Consider the following:
1) In describing day three, the text at least suggests that vegetation sprouted and bore fruit. The language implies normal growth, not instantaneous creation of full grown trees. If we go to chapter two, we learn that God planted a garden for Adam. This implies that the garden grew before God put Adam in it. You may picture an instantaneous planting of full grown plants, but the text does not say that.

2) Then we have the creation of Adam and Eve. Based upon Genesis 1 alone, one would conclude that Adam and Eve were formed and created simultaneously (verse 27) and perhaps instantly. However, when we get to chapter 2 we see that numerous events separated their creations and that a process was involved. However long it took, the Genesis 1 text does not even suggest a moment between Adam and Eve. Therefore, the combination suggests that other events could have occurred which the Genesis 1 text omits.

3) In chapter 2, Adam first sees Eve and exclaims, "This is now bone of my bones." The phrase "this is now" has the connotation of "finally" or "at long last." It suggests more than a few days. Adam had been naming animals in response to God's observation that it is not good for the man to be alone. God already knew it. But God took Adam through a process to prepare Adam to eagerly receive his helpmate. The process took time which must fit into Genesis 1:27 even though the verse itself gives us no clue.

Whatever the text omits, we have the ironclad account that tells us that all (Adam, Eve, hyssop, rocks and stars) were created on their various days, the whole of which was done in 6 days' time (Ex. 20:11).

Arguing from silence or inferring from analogy -can- be helpful in filling in the blanks, but they cannot be used to erase what is already clearly written.

David Hall says that " If day isn't "day" in Genesis 1, "the church is hapless to answer" several questions. Among them, he asks "How do we know whether the rest of Genesis is anything other than poetry if evening, morning, or it was so are not actually true." First, I protest, the church is not hapless to respond to any of his questions. I choose to respond to this question because it touches on the fundamental epistemological issue: How do we know anything and what does Scripture expect us to do with evidence.

Followers of God are to judge prophets by comparing what they say to what actually happens. If the prophecy does not match reality, then the prophet is false. The events are presumed to be true and the events judge the words of the prophet. If a prophet can't get his predictions correct where he can be verified, then you shouldn't trust him where he can't be verified. If this applies to the future, surely it applies to the past. If a prophet can't get his history right, then why should we believe his predictions or obey his commands?

Unspoken assumption: "If Moses didn't get his science right (according to the pronouncement of some modern scientists), then why should we trust his account of creation?" The prophet is proved by the outcome. Moses, however, is not proven wrong just because -some- scientists chaff severely at his (God's) cosmology. The comparison made here is already flawed. On the one hand, we have prophecies and outcomes. So far so good - both are objective. On the other hand we have Moses's creation account and the scientist's -interpretation- of nature (highly subjective).

This is why Jews and Christians draw on archeology. It confirms the general reliability of Scripture and gives credence to the unverifiable testimony of the unseen world. This is why old earth Christians give weight to the reality of Creation. We trust the Bible because it is consistent with reality where it can be verified and so we trust it where it cannot be verified. I first heard this argument from a Ligonier Ministries tape.

So, to David Hall's question: We interpret Scripture according to its literal sense - its sense according to the type of literature. A literal interpretation permits interpreting poetry as poetry and permits all manner of figure of speech. Unfortunately, today, the term "literal interpretation" has strayed from the original meaning of the reformers. Today it has come to mean interpreting something concretely, even scientifically. But that was not always the case. We recognize that Genesis 1 in particular but also chapters 2 & 3 are semi-poetic. Chapter 1 has meter but not rhyme. The author makes a conscience effort to employ key words a specific number of times. They are an inspired dramatic reading. Read Genesis 1 out loud as a dramatic reading. It flows very differently from, say, Genesis 4. It tells us the truth about creation but not with the precision that some read into it.

It would be tiresome to rebut all these tiresome ancient carps against god's Word. "The Genesis account is poetry" is one of those. Jesus did not seem to think that it was poetry when He used the facts of Genesis 1 - 3 as part of His teaching. Neither did Paul, when he carefully laid out his argument of salvation through faith in Christ, the Second Adam. The reality of the first proves that of the second. The reality of the fall (a most unpoetical incident) underscores our need for a Saviour). By misunderstanding the events of Genesis, we perpetuate greater damage to the arguments in the New Testament.

Just as archeology has given us a better understanding of Suzerain treaties and therefore the Abrahamic covenant, modern studies of general revelation (commonly called science) give us information which we can cross-reference to Scripture and help us interpret scripture. Of course one can only cross-reference if one studies both revelations.

This is not cross-referencing. This is down-loading. It comes from the assumption that the "other evidence" is more valuable than what the Bible says. The Bible gets overwritten by the new "evidence". And, again, there are no two revelations - at least not in the sense that he means. This was covered earlier in this letter.

Sadly, many theologians either ignore science or read only authors who confirm the theologian's pre-existing theology. Some may think that reading young-earth explanations of science causes them to understand science. Such a self-imposed censorship prevents them from learning that young-earth authors use the same tactics as evolutionists: Selectively ignore evidence, distort other evidence and use faulty logic. I exhort you as a brother in Christ, study His creation and trust its message. You said, "When God speaks we need to pay attention." I agree. God is speaking loud and clear through His creation.

An analysis of -how- God is speaking "loud and clear" can be found here.

The main goal here is not to understand science. Neither is it to ignore science.Our goal is to study the Scriptures on this topic; but more importantly, it is to have Christ formed in us as we are renewed day by day because of our closer walk with Him. As we know Him better, we learn from also those things that are His - and those things that are counterfeit. An old earth cosmology, at the very bottom of it, comes from a basic distrust of God and His clear, straightforward account of a young creation.

Beyond all this, to remain consistent with young-earth interpretations, one must ignore a basic rules of interpretation: 1) Let Scripture interpret Scripture which I extend to include general revelation and 2) let the clear interpret the unclear. My three points above are scripture interpreting scripture.

I hope you caught this last comment especially. One cannot come to the conclusion that Pastor Morgan did without having two volumes of the Bible, both containing Scripture, one as inspired as the other. This is taught also by Hugh Ross, the notion that nature is the "67th book of the Bible". There are two main ways ways to attack the testimony of Scripture (and when I write the word, I mean the Bible):

1. "Has God said?" Calling God a liar, or...
2. "God -also- said ____". This enables any false teacher to counter what was written by other (supposed) inspired writings. The Mormons did this with the Book of Mormon. Progressive theists like Ross, Stoner and (apparently) Pastor Morgan do it with the book of nature.

My examples from nature are testimony from creation itself and its testimony is clear, consistent and unambiguous. If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, Scripture alone calls the 24-hour creation picture into question. If we give credence to the truth proclaimed by creation itself, the case is closed. How can you, a studied individual, assert that the text unambiguously teaches six 24-hour creation days? How can you in good conscience discredit or ignore the testimony of creation?

Because He created,
John Morgan
Believer in Jesus Christ
and student of both the Bible and creation

Note to readers of this open letter:
Table Talk is an excellent devotional guide which has consistently provided sound encouragement to believers. The present writer has benefited greatly from the ministries of Dr. R.C. Sproul Sr. and Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. Even in light of this disagreement, this writer still commends Table Talk and Ligonier Ministries.

My prayer is that we be people of the Book - the only trustworthy Book there is. As we study Him, we discern better and better the true from the counterfeit.

Originally updated July 17, 2002