LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE GENESIS CREATION NARRATIVE

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. DAVID PETTUS

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE OBST 605

BY

JUSTIN OWENS

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2010

 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Day-Age Creationism………………………………………………………….…………………. 1

The Gap Theory…………………………………………………………………………………... 4

Theistic Evolution………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Recent Creationism……………………………………………………………………………….11

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………..14

References……………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
 1

Introduction

How did the events of Genesis 1 transpire? How did God create the earth? Was it

created in six literal days, or were there huge gaps between each day? These questions and many

more have been asked by Christians for as long as the Bible has been around. There are many

different views of creation each interpreting the biblical text in a different fashion. So which one

is correct? The only way is to analyze the biblical text itself to see what it says. This paper

analyzes four interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative and sets forth the argument that a

literal six-day creation is the most accurate.

Day-Age Creationism

Day-Age Creationism is a form of Old Earth Creationism which views the days of

creation involving various stages of creation in long ages. According to Mark Driscoll, “God

created the universe, including Adam and Eve, in six sequential periods of time that are not

literal twenty-four hour days.”1 Thus, Day-Age Creationism proposes that God did not create the

universe in six literal days, but in six various stages over billions of years.

Day-Age Creationism centers on the Hebrew word yom and its meaning. Proponents of

this view explain that the Hebrew word yom can mean a day, an age, or in the context of Genesis

1, can mean a long period of time. Greg Neyman illustrates this when he said, “One must also

consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is

no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days.” 2 He further notes that “During

the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not

1
Mark Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation,” The Resurgence,
http://theresurgence.com/2006/07/03/answers-to-common-questions-about-creation (accessed December 7, 2010).
2
Greg Neyman, “Old Earth Creation Science: Word Study: Yom.” Answers in Creation.
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm (accessed December 7, 2010).
 2

matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees

time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.” 3 Thus, with the

meaning of the word being a long period of time, Day-Age creationists substantiate their view.

Day-Age creationists also believe, “The „six days‟ are understood in the same sense as „in

that day‟ of Isaiah 11:10-11—that is, as periods of indefinite length and not necessarily of 24

hours duration. The six days are taken as sequential, but as overlapping and merging into one

another.”4 Tremper Longman III also gives a valid point for the use of the Hebrew word yom.

Discussing whether or not the word should be understood as a twenty-four hour day he notes, “A

twenty-four hour is defined by the alternation of sun and moon. But these are not even created

until the fourth „day‟! Attempts to suggest that there were alternative and temporary light

sources are really cases of special pleading.”5

There are problems with the Day-Age view. The first begins with the meaning of the

Hebrew word yom. Longman III notes that “the suggestion that „day‟ does not mean a literal day

but rather a period of time also has its problems. The only problem with this argument is that

these occurrences [of the word yom in other contexts] come in formulas like „day of the Lord.‟

Furthermore, Genesis 1 accompanies the word yom with the phrase „and evening passed and

morning came.‟”6 John Walton also illustrates the problem with the meaning of the Hebrew

word yom. He says, “We cannot be content to ask, „Can the word bear the meaning I would like

it to have?‟ We must instead try to determine what the author and audience would have

3
Ibid.
4
PCA Historical Center, “Report of the Creation Study Committee,”
http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html (accessed December 7, 2010).
5
Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 104.
6
Ibid.
 3

understood from the usage in the context. With this latter issue before us, it is extremely difficult

to conclude that anything other than a twenty-four hour day was intended.” 7

One other problem that the Day-Age view has is the nature of its overlapping days. The

view proposes that the various “days” overlap. “Overlapping „days‟ (ages) are hard to propose

from a reading of the text which more speaks of consecutive times (days).” 8 If the six days were

indeed long ages, then there would be a problem with the continued existence of vegetation.

“Green plants were created on day 3. Although light had been created on day 1, we know

nothing about the nature of this light and its ability to substitute for sunlight (not available until

day 4) as the energy source for the plant life. Thus, it could be argued that the green plants could

not exist for a very long period without the sun.”9 It seems that if creation had taken place over

long ages, then most plants and vegetable life could not have engaged in photosynthesis which

requires the sun.

One final problem that the Day-Age view causes is the denial of the global flood. Day-

Age creationists claim that all evidence of fossil records is placed in the creative week and that

the flood was localized. However, Paul Taylor and Mark Van Bebber note that “It is well known

that billions of dead animals are preserved in water-laid strata across our planet. Yet, most old-

earthers deny the existence of a global Flood catastrophe. At best, they accept a local flood with

little geological significance. They claim the fossils are evidence of many separate deaths over

hundreds of millions of years.” 10 Because of the preserved dead animals in water-laid strata

7
John Walton, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 81.
8
PCA Historical Center, “Report of the Creation Study Committee.”
9
Ibid.
10
Paul S. Taylor and Mark Van Bebber, “Six days or billions of years...Does it make any difference?”
Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/six_days.asp (accessed December 7, 2010).
 4

across the earth, the flood could not have been a localized flood, but rather a catastrophic event

that encompassed the globe.

Day-Age Creationism thus seeks to deny a literal reading of the Genesis creation

narrative by interpreting the events of Genesis 1 as occurring over vast periods of time. It fails in

its accuracy to the biblical text in that it seeks to conform the creation narrative to mainstream

scientific thought of an old earth. Another creation view that is similar to the Day-Age view in

that it too uses an interpretation of gaps is the Gap Theory.

The Gap Theory

The Gap Theory is the view that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 some sort of cataclysmic

event occurred. Morris says,

The latter verse [1:2] is believed by expositors to describe the condition of the earth after
a great cataclysm terminated the geological ages. This cataclysm, which left the earth in
darkness and covered with water, is explained as a divine judgment because of the sin of
Satan in rebelling against God. Following the cataclysm, God then „re-created‟ the world
in the six literal days described in Genesis 1:3-31.11

This view allows for both an old earth and a more recent six-day creation event. Speaking about

this massive cataclysmic event, Michael McDonald notes, “This caused God‟s original, perfect

creation to become without form and void (tohu wavohu). Since God didn‟t create the earth a

waste and empty (see Isa. 45:18), only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of

verse 2.”12 He also explains that the Hebrew word hayetha that is translated as “was,” could also

be translated as “had become.” However, the Hebrew verb hayah is usually followed by the

preposition le when it means “become,” and this preposition is absent in this situation.

11
Henry S. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1976, Amazon Kindle Edition),
locations 693-700.
12
Michael McDonald, The Believer’s Bible Commentary (Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 32.
 5

Giving a background on the history of the Gap Theory, Karl Payne writes in The Popular

Encyclopedia of Apologetics:

The gap theory owes its original creation to a minister named Thomas Chalmers in 1814.
Chalmers decided that because science had spoken, and what it said must be accepted as
true, it then was necessary to modify the Bible to make it agree with science. Scientists
and philosophers were beginning to doubt the accuracy of the creation account in
Genesis. The gap theory was an attempt to reconcile some of their probing questions. 13

Henry Morris further attests to the historical background of the Gap Theory by noting, “It has

been widely popularized by the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible and has been taught in

most of the Bible institutes and fundamentalist seminaries of the United States for the past

century.”14

Though the Gap Theory is popular, it has its problems. “The Gap Theory assumes that

God‟s original creation evolved from simple to complex through the evolutionary process of

gradualism, until God was finally forced to abort the process.”15 The Gap Theory also assumes a

dual creation. Mark Driscoll notes, “Nothing in the Bible speaks of two creations, and at the end

of the six days of creation God declared all that He had made „very good,‟ which does not

correlate with the claim that the earth had been destroyed and made „very bad.‟” 16 It doesn‟t

make sense that God could create the earth and then have to re-create it due to “unforeseen

complications.” God is omniscient and thus nothing is outside of His knowledge. To suggest

that He didn‟t “see it coming” denies part of His very essence.

Textually, the Gap Theory also fails. Much of the Gap Theory leans on the meaning of

the Hebrew word reshit. The Hebrew word reshit can indicate an unspecified period of time that

13
Karl Payne, “Creation, Theories of,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, ed. Ed Hindson and
Ergun Caner (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 155.
14
Morris, locations 700-708.
15
Payne, 155.
16
Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.”
 6

can be used to postulate the Gap theory. However, simply because that it is unspecified does not

automatically mean that it represents a long period of time. An indefinite period of time can

mean a few hours to a few billion years. The fact that the Bible does not expound on this leads

this author to believe that God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 and then

immediately began the events described in Genesis 1:2-31.

Even more textual evidence is found within the first two verses of Genesis 1. There are

two main interpretations of these verses: (1) verse 2 is dependent upon the action of verse 1, or

(2) verse 1 is a literary introduction and verse 2 simply begins the account of what verse 1

summarizes. For now, the first interpretation is discussed with the second discussed later. Both

interpretations refute the Gap Theory‟s basic premise. In the Hebrew text, the first word in verse

2 is vhaerets or “and the earth.” The vav-construction here indicates that verse 2 is dependent on

verse 1 and is a continuation of the action of verse 1. Thus, the Gap theory could have more

credibility if the vav were omitted, but because the vav is part of the word seems to indicate that

there is no gap, but rather simply a continuation of the action. Tremper Longman III hints at this

when he says, “Genesis 1 then seems to make a general statement in the first verse, and then

proceeds to a more detailed telling of the story. The text narrates this as the work of six days.” 17

Because of the Hebrew syntax in the verses, the Gap theory is not a valid interpretation of the

Genesis creation narrative and a more literal interpretation is warranted.

One interesting problem that the Gap Theory causes relates to the flood. When

attempting to refute the universality of the flood, Karl Payne says that, “Gap theorists attempt to

avoid this problem by postulating two floods. Scripture is just as silent regarding a primordial

flood as it is an aborted primordial earth. In fact, 2 Peter 3:6-7 clearly indicates that God has

promised only two global destructions: one that has already occurred by water, and one that will
17
Longman III, 103.
 7

occur in the future by fire.” 18 The simple fact that Scripture doesn‟t mention a second

catastrophic flood is evidence that the Gap Theory is grasping at straws. Something as massive

as a second flood would be included in the Scripture as evidenced by the already included

account of Noah and the flood in Genesis 6-9.

One final problem that the Gap Theory causes is its claim that the order of creation given

in Genesis 1 does not agree with evolutionary theory. Again, Karl Payne notes, “Gap theorists

seek to avoid conflict on this point by postulating that the order of creation, as outlined in

Genesis 1, applies only to the recreated earth of verse 2, not the original creation of verse 1. Gap

theorists assume evolution occurred on an assumed primordial creation before an assumed

second recreation. None of these assumptions are supported in Scripture.”19 With Gap theorists,

it seems that any explanation can be given to keep their views intact. If such a primordial earth

was created, then why not also primordial humans, or a primordial flood, or a primordial cross?

When does it stop? With such assumptions, the character of God is called into question. Each of

these assumptions attempts to do a better job of explaining the creation narrative than God

Himself did when He gave us the account.

The Gap Theory, thus, fails on several grounds to be a viable interpretation of the

Genesis creation narrative. Like the Day-Age creationists, Gap theorists attempt to make the

reading of the Genesis creation account line up with mainstream scientific thought. Both the

Day-Age creationists and the Gap theorists take evolution into account and attempt to line up

Scripture with this erroneous teaching. However, the two views do not take into account

evolution quite as much as the view of theistic evolution.

18
Payne, 156.
19
Ibid.
 8

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution is the view in which God initiated the original creation process and

then used natural selection to complete the job. Mark Driscoll describes theistic evolution the

same way but adds, “The only exception would be God involving Himself again directly in the

making of human life. For the most part, this view accepts the hypothesis of evolution but seeks

to insert God as the creator of matter and overseer of the evolutionary process. This view also

believes that species evolved over a long period of time, which requires an old earth.”20 Karl

Payne points out something interesting about theistic evolution. He says, “The term theistic

evolution is an oxymoron. Theistic is another term for God. Evolution is another term for

gradualism and materialistic naturalism.” 21

Eugenie C. Scott from the National Center for Science Education explains theistic

evolution as “a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic

evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well

as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular, it is acceptable to TEs that one species give

rise to another; they accept descent with modification.”22 He continues to say that “TEs vary in

whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some believe that God created the laws of

nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God

intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans).”23

Theistic evolution abounds with problems. Theistic evolution views God as merely a

spectator and allowing His initial creation to fight it out amongst themselves as to who would be

20
Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.”
21
Ibid., 154.
22
Eugenie C. Scott, “The Creation/Evolution Continuum,” The National Center for Science Education,
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum (accessed December 9, 2010).
23
Ibid.
 9

the strongest survivor. When addressing the issue of God creating through an evolutionary

process, the major points of evolution theory should come into the discussion. For instance, the

concept of evolution known as micro-evolution can be observed and does take place as different

species learn to adapt and evolve according to their habitats. However, the other evolutionary

concept of macro-evolution has never been proven nor reproduced in laboratory conditions.

Macro-evolution assumes that over a large period of time that one species will evolve

into an entirely different species. Along these lines, evolutionists hold that apes or monkeys

evolved into human beings. This stands in stark contrast to Genesis 1:27 where God creates

man. Genesis 2:7 gives an even clearer picture of man‟s creation as coming from the dust of the

ground and not from evolved apes. Karl Payne says that, “Theistic evolution avoids materialistic

naturalism‟s position that nothing is the ultimate source for everything. But it ultimately still

embraces and promotes the belief that molecules eventually evolved into man through a mindless

process involving chance, matter, time, and mutation.”24 So, even though the name is different,

theistic evolution is still another form of evolution, specifically the macro-evolution form.

Biblically, theistic evolution falls flat on its face. Eight times in Genesis 1:3-27 the Bible

records the phrase “God said.” When God spoke, things happened. God spoke light into

existence. God spoke land and water into existence. God spoke animals, plant life, and man into

existence. He did not simply just begin and leave creation unfinished. He created completed,

living things and it was so. In Driscoll‟s article, he points out that “evolution teaches that one

species evolves into another species.” 25 However, after God created sea animals, birds, and land

animals, the Bible states that each one of these was created according to their kinds. Each

animal was distinct and not the product of an evolutionary process.

24
Payne, 154.
25
Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.”
 10

Theistic evolution also calls into question the idea of the image of God. If man were

allowed to evolve, then why would the biblical account say that man was created in the image of

God in Genesis 1:26-27? Those who believe in evolution or theistic evolution have lost their

identity. Francis Schaeffer says, “In his own naturalistic theories, with the uniformity of cause

and effect in a closed system, with an evolutionary concept of a mechanical, chance parade from

atom to atom, man has lost his unique identity. As he looks out upon the world, as he faces the

machine, he cannot tell himself from what he faces. He cannot distinguish himself from other

things.”26 In contrast, the believer who understands the creation account as literal and not as

some form of allegory does not have this problem. He knows who he is—one who is made by

the Creator‟s hand and in His image.

One final scriptural problem with theistic evolution arises with the fact that the Bible

teaches that sin and death came through Adam. If God created through some form of

evolutionary means over billions of years, then death would have happened many, many times

before Adam would have come on the scene. Karl Payne says, “According to the Bible, before

Adam‟s sin, there was no death. Genesis 1:31 clearly states that everything God created was

good.”27 Theistic evolution stumbles over the rest of Scripture in that it seeks to explain away

what happened in the first chapter of Genesis, but fails to take into account the rest of Scripture.

So, the question arises that if God created through an evolutionary means, then why

would He have given the creation story at all? Because God is true and is not a God of confusion

(cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33), He would not jeopardize His message from the Bible by causing

confusion on whether or not He created through an evolutionary process. Such confusion would

call into question the authority of the rest of the Bible. However, because God did not create

26
Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 1972), 46.
27
Payne, 154.
 11

through evolution, the Bible is and always will remain the authoritative Word of God. So, if God

did not create through theistic evolution, recreate according to the Gap theory, or use long ages

to bring creation into being like Day-Age creationists propose, then how did He do it? In this

author‟s judgment, the more literal approach of recent creationism answers this question the best.

Recent Creationism

Recent Creationism is often called “Young Earth Creationism” or YEC. This

interpretation views the biblical account of creation literally. Mark Driscoll notes, “God created

the entire universe, including Adam and Eve, in six literal twenty-four hour days. This view is

almost always accompanied with a belief in a young earth as it seeks to be faithful to the Biblical

text while not giving much credence to the scientific claims of such things as an old earth.”28 As

the Bible states, God created the earth, plants, animals, man, and all other created things in a

literal six-day time frame. If God had created everything over a vast amount of time between

each “day,” then He would have said so in the creation account. Cryptic talk and explanation of

each day being other than an actual twenty-four hour period can mislead and even distract the

reader of Genesis from its intended purpose to introduce God as the Creator and how He is made

known.

Recent Creationism views the earth as being no more than 10,000 years old. This stands

in stark contrast with mainstream scientific thought of the earth being roughly 4.6 billion years

old. While scientists have studied the earth and used means such as radiometric dating to

substantiate their claims for an old earth, Driscoll gives several explanations that can explain

why the earth appears old. He notes:

1. Though the earth appears old to most scientists it is in fact young and the scientists
are simply mistaken.
28
Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.”
 12

2. The earth appears old because it was made mature like Adam was and did not evolve
over time but gives the appearance of being aged. For example, if Adam had chopped
down either the tree of life, or the tree of good and evil spoken of in Genesis 2, he
would have likely found tree rings as the tree was made mature.
3. The flood in Genesis 6-9 universally covered the earth which compressed the
geological layers and rearranged the topography so greatly that the earth appears to be
old and to have developed over a long period of time.
4. The earth is in fact old and the days mentioned in Genesis 1-2 are not literally twenty-
four hour days but extended periods of time.
5. The earth may be or likely is old, as Genesis 1:1 explains an indeterminate period of
time during which God made creation out of nothing. This is supported by the
Hebrew word for “beginning” (reshit), which can mean anything from days to
billions of years as it is a general word.29

Of the five that Driscoll gives, the first, second, and third line up well with the view of a recent

creation. The fourth and fifth explanations line up with Day-Age Creationism and the Gap

Theory respectively.

There is no reason to assume that the Genesis creation narrative is not a literal rendering

of the creation events. The second main interpretation of the first two verses of Genesis 1

illustrates this literal rendering. A casual reading of the first two verses of Genesis 1 does not

imply that some sort of gap occurred, but rather that verse 1 could be simply an introductory

statement. John Walton, when discussing interpretation options to the first two verses of Genesis

1, says, “The traditional rendering, understands verse 1 as an independent clause, which either

refers to creative activity that preceded the seven-day sequence or provides a literary

introduction to the events of the seven days.”30

Walton further explains that “this would result in a summary/title for the chapter: God

created heaven and earth. Now let me explain how he went about it.”31 Walton summarizes his

discussion of the nature of verses 1 and 2 by saying, “It can therefore be concluded that the text

29
Ibid.
30
Walton, 69.
31
Ibid.
 13

is not suggesting that anything was actually created in 1:1; rather, the verse is a literary

introduction, a summary of what follows.” 32 These literary introductions abound in the book of

Genesis taking the form of ten or eleven toledoths which outline each section of the book. So the

idea is not foreign to Genesis as Genesis 1:1 sets a precedent for later literary introductions.

With Genesis 1:1 being a literary introduction, the Gap Theory falls apart and the literal recent

creationist view stands firm.

More evidence for a literal rendition is that definite time periods are given, actual animals

are created, trees and plant life are created, and stars & heavenly bodies are placed in the sky.

These are concrete, physical creations that are neither figurative nor imaginary. For example,

Genesis 1 uses of the Hebrew word yom to signify a day. Driscoll points out that “Christians

who argue for a metaphorical view of the six days of creation rightly point out that the word used

for day in Hebrew, yom, often refers to an extended period of time that is more than a literal

twenty-four hour day.”33 He goes on to show that despite this, the days are numbered which give

support to actual twenty-four hour days. Tremper Longman III agrees by saying that, “Genesis 1

accompanies the word yom with the phrase „and evening passed and morning came.‟” 34 The

days involved in creation were actual twenty-four hour time periods that had both mornings and

evenings. Further details supporting a literal reading are the rivers that flowed from the garden

of Eden in Genesis 2 as well as genealogical records that date back to Adam in Luke and 1

Chronicles proving that Adam actually existed.

Recent Creationism is the most accurate and stable among all of the various

interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative. Where other views fall, Recent Creationism

32
Ibid.
33
Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.”
34
Longman III, 104.
 14

stands firm. This view takes into account the entire Bible and does not contradict Scripture at

any point. Though scientists‟ mainstream thought and objections may arise in an attempt to

contradict this view, Scripture has been around far longer than these scientific theories and

refutes them at every turn. Scientists of the time 1900 years ago believed that the earth was the

center of the universe. This was refuted by Copernicus in the 1500s. Until Columbus made his

voyage to the New World, scientists thought that the world was flat.

Even evolution is now being refuted by science itself. D. James Kennedy notes that

Darwin made the interesting statement in his Origin of Species. Kennedy says that “if there

should be any mechanism of such complexity that it cannot be explained by the gradual accretion

of mutations, then his theory is false. The infinitely complex living cell, uncovered by

microbiology, meets and exceeds that criterion.”35 Just because mainstream science has a theory

today doesn‟t mean that it won‟t be disproven tomorrow. Scripture has stood the test of time and

is a firm testament to God‟s creative works.

Conclusion

There are various interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative. Day-Age Creationism

proposes that God made everything in six long ages thus yielding an old earth. The Gap Theory

postulates that some kind of cataclysm took place between the events of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Theistic Evolution claims that God began creation and then stepped back and let His creation

evolve into what it is today. Recent Creationism holds to a literal rendering of the Genesis

narrative and believes that God created everything in six literal days. It is the opinion of this

author that the fourth view of a recent creation is the most accurate to the biblical text. All of the

35
D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1996), 160-161.
 15

other interpretations falter in their interpretation of the biblical text where Recent Creationism

stands firm.

The discussion of these various interpretations will inevitably continue. Driscoll quotes

Paul in that “we only see in part now but one day in Jesus' presence we will know in full and we

will all be in complete agreement on this and other matters.”36 He also makes a good point on

the issue by quoting Augustine saying that the Bible “is not a scientific textbook seeking to

answer the ever-changing inquiries of science, but rather a theological textbook seeking to reveal

God and the means by which He saves us.”37

So, disregarding one‟s stance on the way that creation came about, the most important

thing is that God has made Himself known so that we could come to know Him and His Son

Jesus Christ. Paul says in Romans 1:20, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power

and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things

that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

36
Driscoll, “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.”
37
Ibid.
 16

References

Driscoll, Mark. “Answers to Common Questions about Creation.” The Resurgence.

http://theresurgence.com/2006/07/03/answers-to-common-questions-about-creation
(accessed December 7, 2010).

Kennedy, D. James. Evangelism Explosion. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1996.

Longman III, Tremper. How to Read Genesis. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005.

McDonald, William. Believer’s Bible Commentary. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers,

1995.

Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1976. Amazon Kindle
Edition.

Neyman, Greg. “Old Earth Creation Science: Word Study: Yom.” Answers in Creation.
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm (accessed December 7, 2010).

Payne, Karl. “Creation, Theories of.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ed
Hindson and Ergun Caner, 154-157. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

PCA Historical Center. Report of the Creation Study Committee.

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html (accessed December 7, 2010).

Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Space and Time. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 1972.

Scott, Eugenie C. “The Creation/Evolution Continuum.” The National Center for Science
Education. http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum (accessed
December 9, 2010).

Taylor, Paul and Mark Van Bebber. “Six days or billions of years...Does it make any
difference?” Answers in Genesis.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/six_days.asp (accessed December 7,
2010.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.