Is the Earth Old or Young ?
No answers here, but some things to think about.
I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways?
An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed.
A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position, that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists.
Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance.
Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe?
What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way.
I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. Topic of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to examination.
What it comes down to then, in my opinion, is: “What do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?” Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him.
It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening.
As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time. In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps.
Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least 350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) . Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint, so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The geneologies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture?
To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God made man.
The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business. However, I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion. This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin. Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. The point is that even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained.
For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect an inferior.
It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”.
Gen 1:4-5
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV)
The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do. The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely, near 24 hours long. To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document.
Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been cause to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependant upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4:
Gen 1:16-19
16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV)
If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosyntheses? Interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves.
We have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense. What about this word Yom we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew?
My Bible software reports that this word Yom occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelyhood that Yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is Yom not 24 hours in the Bible?
Here are examples of how it is used otherwise:
The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5).
(2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10).
(3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44).
(4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13).
(5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30).
(6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6).
(7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.”
(8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above.
That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright (c)1996
See anything there that suggests eons? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are referances to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word. If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE: “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”.
Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question:
What about the resurrection. Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting stories. If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value. It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe god, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation.
Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when?
These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by collegues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental question, answers that are elusive.
Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old once discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events. The past is not like electricity or chemisty, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s pervue. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them.