One class of interpreters tends to interpret the days figuratively or allegorically (e.g., Origen and Augustine), while another class interprets the days as normal calendar days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose, Bede and Calvin).
Nevertheless, our goal has been to enhance the unity, integrity, faithfulness and proclamation of the Church.
Therefore we are presenting a unanimous report with the understanding that the members hold to different exegetical viewpoints. It is our hope and prayer that the Church at large can join us in a principled, Biblical recognition of both the unity and diversity we have regarding this doctrine, and that all are seeking properly to understand biblical revelation.
While they vary in their interpretation of the days, all recognize the difficulty presented by the creation of the sun on the fourth day. 185-254), in answering Celsus complaint that Genesis has some days before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, and some days after, replies that Genesis 2:4 refers to the day in which God made the heaven and the earth and that God can have days without the sun providing the light (Contra Celsum, VI: 50-51).
Referring to his earlier Commentary on Genesis (now lost), Origen says, In what we said earlier we criticized those who follow the superficial interpretation and say that the creation of the world happened during a period of time six days long . (Contra Celsum, VI: 60).
He says that the light was divided so as to shine in the upper and not the lower parts of the earth, and that it passed under the earth, making a day of twenty-four hours with morning and evening, precisely as the sun does. In the western or Latin church some commentators, such as John Scotus Erigena, followed Augustines views, but most followed Bedes approach, sometimes combining various elements from both views as in the case of Robert Grossteste (c. suggested was that of the Greeks rather than the Latins, maintained that light originally came into the world in an ebb-and-flow-like manner. The more common opinion of the Latins was that the first light, when it came into being, had diurnal or twenty-four-hour rotation; it moved around the universe in twenty-four hours, just as the sun will when it comes into being three days hence. The eastern or Greek church also entertained a variety of views on the days of creation, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodoret teaching more fanciful versions than that of Basil.
1168-1253), who also emphasized the literary structure of Genesis 1 with three days of ordering and three days of parallel adornment. Day was made when light flowed into the world, night, when the light was drawn back . century the Protestant Reformers mainly wanted to distance themselves from fanciful allegorizations of the days of creationwhich is how they regarded Augustines solution to the problem of the nature of the days.
It is our earnest desire not to see our beloved church divide over this issue.
The debate over the nature of the creation days is, theologically speaking, a humble one.
We affirm that Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses.
We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true.
Among the vast number of biblical texts about creation, we are primarily discussing the exegesis of Genesis 1.