 and we should not doubt the occurrence of a future biblical event (viz., the second coming) simply because it seems to be taking a long time from our limited human perspective. According to opponents of Day-Age Theory, then, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the length of the creation week.
Each day in the first chapter of Genesis is described as having an evening and a morning. Indeed, these two words—evening and morning—are used extensively in the Old Testament, and in most circumstances they refer to normal days. Speaking from the perspective of language, opponents of Day-Age Theory note that, if Moses wanted to convey a longer period of time, he could have used clear terms such as olam or qedem in place of yom.
Another reason given for a metaphorical “day” as postulated by the Day-Age Theory is that the sun was not created until day four. Given this, how could there have been conventional, 24-hour days (i.e., day and night) before this? Opponents of the Day-Age Theory would contend that, technically, the sun itself is not needed for a day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating Earth. The “evening and morning” indicates a rotating Earth, and, as far as light is concerned, God’s very first command was “Let there be light” and there was light (Genesis 1:3), prior to there being a sun. Separating the light from the darkness was the very first thing our Creator did.
Day-Age opponents will also note that, in Revelation 21:23, we see that the New Jerusalem “does not need the sun or moon to shine on it” as the “glory of God” will provide the “light.” At the beginning of creation, God’s radiant light could well have been sufficient until the luminaries were created three days later.
Additionally, under most interpretations of the Day-Age Theory, disease, suffering and death must have existed before the fall of man. Scripture clearly indicates that “sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). There was no death prior to Adam’s act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden, or, as Day-Age creationists would say, there was no human death prior to Adam’s sin. Depending on how one aligns the Day-Age Theory with the origin of human beings, it could nullify the doctrine of the Fall. This would also render void the doctrine of the atonement, for, if there was no Fall, why would we need a Redeemer?