PMW 2026-069 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Too many Christians dismiss six-day creationism as naive. They usually do so in order to avoid being mocked by evolutionist Christians. This is unfortunate because there are many scholars who hold to six-day creation. Perhaps a survey of some of these names will be encouraging to my readers. The Six-day Creationist view that I hold, and which I present and defend, stands upon the exegetical observations of well-argued, long-standing, traditional orthodoxy — an orthodoxy including many noteworthy biblical and exegetical scholars from the past and the present.

Older noteworthy scholars include the following:

• Martin Luther (1483–1546): “Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read.”

• John Calvin (1509–64): “God himself took the space of six days” to create; “six days were employed in the formation of the world.”

• The Westminster Standards (1643–49): God created the world “in the space of six days” (WCF 4:1; LC 120; SC 9), “within the space of six days” (LC 15).

• Francis Turretin (1623–87): “the simple and historical Mosaic narration . . . mentions six days and ascribes a particular work to each day.”

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

• John Gill (1697–1771): “though God took six days for the creation of the world and all things in it, to make his works the more observable, and that they might be distinctly considered, and gradually become the object of contemplation and wonder; yet the work of every day, and every particular work in each day, were done in a moment, without any motion and change, without any labour and fatigue, only by a word speaking, by an almighty fiat, let it be done, and it immediately was done.”

• Heinrich Heppe (1820–79): “God completed the creation of matter and of the creatures made from it in the course of six successive days; not as though God could not have called every item into existence in one moment, but in order to manifest the variety and wise ordering of His creatures.”

• C. F. Keil (1807–88) and Franz Delitzsch (1813–90): “If the days of creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, of years or thousands of years, but as simple earthly days” (Keil and Delitzsch 2001: 32). In their footnote they add: “Exegesis must insist upon this, and not allow itself to alter the plain sense of the words of the Bible, from irrelevant and untimely regard to the so-called certain inductions of natural science. Irrelevant we call such considerations, as make interpretation dependent upon natural science, because the creation lies outside the limits of empirical and speculative research, and, as an act of the omnipotent God, belongs rather to the sphere of miracles and mysteries.”

• Robert L. Dabney (1820–98): “the sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation,” noting that “the natural day is its literal and primary meaning.”

Creation according to the Scriptures
Ed. by P. Andrew Sandlin
This book is sub-titled: A Presuppositional Defense of Literal , Six-day Creation. It has chapters by R. J. Rushdoony, Andrew Sandlin, Kenneth Gentry, Cornelius Van Til, and others. It touches on historical, exegetical, theological, and philosophical implications of Six-day Creation.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

More recent advocates of six-day creation include the following:

• Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949): “the days of creation were ordinary days.”

• Louis Berkhof (1873–1957): “the literal interpretation of the term ‘day’ in Gen. 1 is favored.”

• H. C. Leupold (1891–1972): “when the verse [Gen. 1:5] concludes with the statement that the first ‘day’ (yôm) is concluded, the term must mean a twenty-four hour period.”

• Jack B. Scott (1928– 2011), Professor of Old Testament: the days of Genesis are in “the Biblical order of the 24 hour period.”

• John MacArthur (1939–), pastor and scholar: “I am convinced that Genesis 1–3 ought to be taken at face value — as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about Genesis suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical.”

• Douglas F. Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology: “Genesis ‘days’ as plain, solar days.”

• Robert L. Reymond (1932–2013), Professor of Systematic Theology: “[I] can discern no reason, either from Scripture or from the human sciences, for departing from the view that the days of Genesis were ordinary twenty-four-hour days.”

• R. C. Sproul (1939–) of Ligonier Ministries: “For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now [2006] changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation.”

• Morton H. Smith (1923–), Professor of Systematic and Biblical Theology; Joseph A. Pipa, Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology; Benjamin Shaw, Professor of Old Testament; Sid Dyer, Professor of Greek and New Testament; and W. Duncan Rankin, Professor of Systematic Theology, are contributors to a book-length defense of the historical exegesis of Genesis 1 (Pipa and Hall 1999).

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com