Monday, October 13, 2008

A Day of Creation = 1,000 years

Much debate goes on as to just how we should view the Hebrew word "yom" translated as "day" in the Genesis version of the creation. Some pose it as 7 undefined periods, each being different in length. Others take the more obvious translation of assuming the same time period for each day but question arises as to how long each was.

The first problem is that the sun wasn't created until the 4th day according to Genesis. Therefore what was the light and darkness system that was set up relative to this earth's time?

Logic would suggest to take that written within Scripture (that answers these questions) as the truth. However there is one thing that has arisen that has caused many to doubt that written in Scripture. And that is the dogmas of a new religion - theory science.

Now you may be wondering why I refer to it as a "religion:" After all doesn't it work on proof rather than faith?

A person may state that Elijah saw God, and present Scripture showing it as evidence. But who believes that JUST because he and his instrument of belief (the Bible) said so? Only those with blind faith.

A theory scientist makes a claim that some item is 50 million years old and that his instrument says so. Who believes that JUST because he and his instrument said so? Almost Everyone.


A person may go to great length to discover whether what Scripture proposes is true. Do they just read what those in favour say? Logically you would look at what opposes the idea.

Yet how many look at that which opposes the claims of the theory scientist? But the dating methods are proven accurate, aren't they? Who told you that the dating methods are accurate? The priests of theory science! They claim that carbon breakdown is consistent, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. They tell you that their other dating methods are accurate as it suits them. But by what method have they proven their accuracy? They are confirmed by more priests of theory science - kind of like going to ask your bishop if you want to know if the church is true.

If I were to search for a world religion at this time, theory science would be it. Blind faith - definitely.

How did they PROVE that something supposedly 50 million years old is any more than 5 thousand years old? They obviously know that we can't go back 50 million years to see if their logic is as correct as they try to make it sound. Almost all scientific "facts," demonstrated without proof, are proven false in the first test (where such tests are possible). And the vast majority require many tests and failures before working correctly (where such has been finally achieved).

As they can't prove their "logic" to be accurate I can't regard it as scientific. My (atheistic) science teacher told me that the difference between religion and science was that science could demonstrate the truth of its claims. Therefore talking of knowing what happened millions of years ago is not science. Call it something else if you wish.

There are countless "PROVEN facts" of science which other scientists have come along and proven wrong. Good work people. But why should we believe what you now claim is true? Particularly at the expense of Scripture. Without this religion no one claiming belief in God would doubt what the Scriptures say. But I am open to sensible consideration of truth based on KNOWN FACTS. Yet when it comes to what happened beyond our recorded history we only have conjecture.

I would like to quote the following sentiment from Joseph Fielding Smith for your consideration:

"I am opposed to the present teachings in relation to the age of the earth which declare that the earth is millions of years old. Some modern scientists even claim that it is billions of years old. Naturally, since I believe in modern revelation, I cannot accept these so-called scientific teachings, for I believe them to be in conflict with the simple and direct word of the Lord that has come to us by divine revelation." Answers to Gospel Questions Volume V Chapter 30

So putting aside the philosophies of the theory science religion let's look at what the Scriptures actually say about when the earth was created. What does the "word of the Lord" actually say in regard what a day (yom) in creation actually was?

"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time [yom] that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord's time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning." Abr 5:13

So the yom in creation was according to Kolob's time. Then we should look to see whether this yom in Kolob time equals undefined periods or millions/billions of years.

"And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob." Abr 3:4

So this states that a day [yom] in creation equals a thousand years on this planet. This also dispels the theory that the periods of time may have been different from each other.

This point is also confirmed in the second facsimile (the round one) in the book of Abraham. If you look at the explanation of figure 1 (in the opposite page) you will note its mention of the day to God being a thousand years of this planet.

I would recommend to all those caught in this trap (obviously and deviously laid by Satan), that they come out of Babylon and the philosophies of men and actually BELIEVE in Christ. We do NOT have to amalgamate these two religions.


Anonymous said...

I don't agree with you that the earth only took 7 periods of 1,000 years to be created. A day to the Lord according to 2 Peter and early church brethren could be 365,000,000 years. "Again it is revealed that one of our Father's days in Kolob, is 1000 years. It is also revealed, that his year, as we count, 365,000 years. Then a week of his years, by the count of heaven, is 2,555,000,000 years." - William W. Phelps. If 1,000 years is 1 day (as you refer) and according to Peter 1 day is as a thousand years then 1 day to the Lord could equal 365,000,000 years. David O McKay was speaking to students at BYU when he made refrence to "the millions of years that it took to repare the physical world". I could give you other refrences if you would like. I just don't think the Lord has completly revealed everything about the creation of the World. Thank you for your articles. You can email me at

Doug Towers said...


Thanks for your input. Interesting ideas.

I've read many of the philosophies our brothers, have believed over the centuries. I only quoted JFS because of the point of his argument: That revelation opposes it.

The point is, what is true?

Brother McKay also believed that protons travelled to electrons, when the science of the day taught that.

While I accept that Scripture can be read in all sorts of strange ways, the Book of Abraham makes it plain. It also gives that each day is equal in length.

But this isn't all. Common sense tells me that us taking millions of years to make an earth is not a practical conclusion. We wanted to come to earth and gain a body. Why would we wait billions or even millions of years to do so? What practical sense is there in that? I don't know about you but I like to get on with things. MILLIONS of years? That's either stetching our patience or calling our creative abilities feeble.

To me the Scriptures disagree with the ever changing "scientific" philosophies of our day; and sense disagrees.

yeti said...

At the beginning of the artical you made mention of the problem that the sun, and thus our measurement of time was not created until the 4th day. But I wonder, if each day is a thousand years how did the plants which were created on the 3rd day live for 1000 years without sun?
Also, there are plants whose primary method of reproduction relies on animal aid. I would see this as being a problem. Would you believe that there was no death before the fall, and that therefore the first plans created lived to be over 3 thousand years? That would be an old carrot. I have to say I was confused for the whole second half of the article, and fail to see why you don't believe each section of time was 24 hours.

Doug Towers said...


Yes, there was no death before the fall. Therefore the plants wouldn't die.

Abraham 3:4 mentions about a day of the Lord's time being a thousand years of our time: That his time is according to the planet Kolob. Then a chapter later he talks of a day. It meantions that the days were calculated according to the time of Kolob.

Evolutionists within the church are very confused in regard the creation. They try to mix Scripture and the guesses of theory science together. In this some claim that the periods of time were different. As to make them equal leaves a lot of problems with the theory.

So my post has focused on the popint that the Scriptures declare them to be equal periods. And only a thousand (not millions or trillions - as they propose) of years.

yeti said...

I still don't see how you would get around the problems with each day being a thousand years. Like how would the plants like for a thousand years before the cun came to be? how did that work? and did the earth just float around in space for the many years before the sun was created? And what about the healthy bacteria that lives inside of intestines. would that just keep reproducing and never die? would it have been created witht the fish? Why would you think it took God 6000 years anyhow? do you think he physically made stuff, or did he speak and then it came to pass? then did he rest and let the world be in chaos for 1000 years?
then do you suggest that fish ate just parts of plants. not enough to kill them. They would eat apples but not carrots?
I don't see any scientific reason to believe a day was 1000 years (i am not saying that should be your reason for belief but...) it seems easier and more logical to believe that a day is a day, or that the whole story is poetry.

Doug Towers said...


The problems you present would be just as valid if the days went for 24 hours. The earth would still have to go around something. Plants would still require the sun. In fact the earth would have been instantly frozen solid without the sun. So how could the plants exist on such an earth for 5seconds, even?

Why did God take a whole 24 hours to create an earth? And why did he create it without form and void? Why not just make the seas and land separate when he created it in the first place? After all, he is omniscient (all knowing) and must have known what he planned on doing, therefore?

The Scriptures answer these dilemas.

Firstly when we talk of creating something why would anyone assume that it means it was made from nothing? If I say I created a painting, you wouldn't assume that I just puffed it up from thin air. Nowhere do the Scriptures pose that creating something means to make from nothing.

Nextly it wasn't God himself who created the earth. It was some of us who went down; with Jesus as the foreman. WE took a thousand years - inexperience. We made things of already existing substances.

In regard the sun and plants; our temple endowment session poses that the Scriptural text has the third and fourth days the wrong way around. The plants were made on the 4th day. Which only makes sense when you look back at the whole matter.

In regard what we used for gravity for the earth, with no sun, we used some other governing planet that was higher in governing than our sun. It is speculated that perhaps we used Kolob. It provided the heat.

As to plants etc and food. No food was required, other than for growth, as they were in a perfect state. Adam and Eve were told to eat fruit and seeds - neither of which causes a death of anything. Animals would do the same. Nothing died before Adam and Eve fell. There was no death before the fall.

yeti said...

So do you think Jesus and his spirit siblings spoke and things listened, or do you think that they physically formed things?
When Abraham 4 speaks of Gods in the creating process, do you think this is a reference to Jesus and his spirit siblings?

So, I'd say there are 6 creation stories in your scriptures. the first 3 are rather similar and are found in Genesis 1, Moses 2 and Abraham 4. They go in sequential order and refer to days (or time block in Abraham) these orders are all the same. I can’t see how you can take these accounts literally, yet say that the scripture is wrong in its order. Why would it be wrong? How can you be okay believing that 3 times (or maybe just 2) that God revealed creation that he messed up the order? The author messed up the order? What? Wouldn’t that have been fixed in the Book of Moses if it had been wrong? If it is wrong, can we trust Joseph Smith as a prophet? SO many questions.
Now, I consider Genesis 2, Moses 3 and Abraham 5 as different account of creation. Almost a retelling. But if you look closely at this you would see that the order of creation is different (Adam created before plants and animals). What are your thoughts about that? These passages place right next to each other appear to disagree with each other. I believe there is a New Testament passage about man being the final act of creation (I am not really sure...), but Abraham 5:20 seems to suggest that animals were the last thing created. How do you reconcile these two stories?

Doug Towers said...


Very good observations.

It would seem to me that Moses got his story of creation from Abraham. Why Abraham has the days of creation mixed up I don't know. It is possible that he just wasn't thinking properly when he wrote it.

However the answer to your other problem lies in all three books. But Abraham spells it out the plainest.

You will note that when creation of planets, the sun, the moon, stars, parting of waters and separation of anything unliving occurs the statements are different. When it comes to living things Abraham says that the Gods "PREPARED THE EARTH to bring forth" whatever.

This is further confirmed in statements such as that in Genesis chapter 2. It says after the creation that this (that it had just spoken of) was concerning the earth etc. But it then says that it was concerning grass etc BEFORE it was put here.

THEN God forms a man first (as you observed). As the Book of Moses says concerning Adam, "the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also."

As to why Joseph Smith didn't correct this I can only assume. But my logic can think of two possible reasons. One being that he wouldn't consider it worth the arguements that it could create. The other is that he wouldn't want to explain the reason it is significant.

As to creation and how we did it. The basic particles that make up matter contain an intelligence. Therefore to get them to do anything you need to convince them to do so. They aren't of a great intelligence. But they aren't stupid either. To get them to move you must demonstrate a large amount of love toward them. They feel this love and then want to respond by moving in their communities. So we watched them until they obeyed us. Interesting stuff, huh?

Moses disguised things a bit more because of the ignorance of the Israelites on spiritual matters.