Young Earth v. Old Earth: What Does the Bible Say?

Hey, Dan. How's it going? Alright, how's seminary? Good, really good.

I appreciate you taking time to meet with me. No problem. So, you've always been someone that I respect, especially when it comes to your knowledge of science and the

Bible. So, what's on your mind? Well, I'm getting a little confused on how many ways there are to interpret the

Bible. Got some examples? In our Genesis class, for example, we explored the creation account, but there's like four ways to read it.

Only four? Yeah, so there's the literal historical view, the day -age view, the progressive creation, and the gap theory.

Okay, so which one do you think you believe? Well, I mean,

I think there's a little bit of truth in all of them. I mean, does there have to be one correct view?

Maybe, maybe not. Consider their differences in the historical view Genesis has taken literally.

Like saying one day of creation is a real 24 -hour day? Exactly. Or using the genealogies to date when

Adam was created about 6 ,000 years ago. Genealogies? Yeah, look, in Genesis 5, it tells us how old each of the patriarchs were when they had their children.

You add those years between each generation, and you get a pretty good estimate of when Adam was created.

Sounds reliable. But even if there were gaps in the genealogy, say a few decades here or there, there's certainly not thousands or millions of extra years supposed by the other creation views.

Seems to work with a creation of about 6 ,000 years ago. Many of the lifespans of the

Genesis patriarchs overlap, so there's not a lot of room for gaps either. So from what

I see here, most other creation accounts disagree with 6 ,000 years, ordinary days, or the genealogies, right?

Exactly. Instead, people insert millions of years. So can they be reconciled, or is there really only one creation story?

I'm not sure. I mean, for instance, it gets pretty confusing when the Bible says, a day to the

Lord can be like a thousand years. Ah, yes, 2 Peter 3 .8. It actually says that one day is with the

Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. But if you look at the context of what that verse is talking about, it's talking about God's judgment and His patience with man's rebellion.

Notice that the verse says one day is as a thousand years. It's a simile, showing that God is outside of time because He is the creator of time.

Okay, so it's saying that to God, time does not affect Him, but to man, a day is still a day.

Exactly. It's not defining a day because it doesn't say a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.

So it's a little tricky when people try to define it that way, to try and come up with longer ages.

For sure. If each day in Genesis 1 was a thousand years, on day 3 God made the plants, but on day 4

He made the sun. We know that plants need the sun to survive, so if each day was a thousand years, the plants would all have died long before the sun rose on the fourth day.

Also, flying insects were created on the fifth day to pollinate the plants and trees that were created on the third day.

They're good points. The creation account seems to make more sense if the six days are actual days.

Remember I talked about biblical context. In this passage, Peter is referring to Psalm 90, verse 4.

It says here that a thousand years is like a watch in the night. But a night's watch does not last a thousand years, does it?

No, that would be quite the watch. Tons of coffee. A quadruple shot. Quad shot, yeah.

Anyway, a thousand years is just a figure of speech, a comparison to make something more vivid.

In context, 2 Peter 3 is saying that although it may seem like a long time to us, the

Lord still keeps His promises. Okay, this is starting to make sense for me. But in my

Hebrew class, we're learning that the word for day is yom. And can't that word mean different things in different contexts?

True, it can, but it all goes back to context, right, and how it's used in Genesis 1. Here, read this in verse 5.

It says, And the evening and the morning were the first day. What stands out to you about that verse? The Jewish day starts at sundown, so it sounds like God is starting a new day.

Exactly. Here, yom is used along with evening and morning, followed by a number after each of these days of creation.

And it repeats over and over at the end of each creation day. This makes them real 24 -hour days.

Okay, but God is all -powerful. Why couldn't He have created everything in an instant? Why six days?

I think He was setting up a system of days for us to live in. He was setting up context for our lives and how the world works.

It all goes back to context. The why behind the what. But what about yom being used in other passages as a longer period of time or an era?

First of all, yom is used over 400 times in the Old Testament when it's used with a number like first day.

In every case, it always means an ordinary day. Yom is used with the word evening or morning 23 times, and evening and morning appear together without yom 38 times.

And all 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. God seemed to want to make it clear to us.

He said evening and morning, then a day and a number. Another thing to consider is that God created time on day one.

Before then, time as we knew it did not exist. Wow. I never really thought about when

God created time. It's hard to wrap our minds around existence before time.

Look here in Genesis 1 .14. It says that God established lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night and that they would be used for signs and seasons and for days and years.

So it sounds like God began the measurement of time using days and weeks. Seven days for a week, 24 hours for a day.

Exactly. But there's even a bigger issue. All of the non -literal creation stories compromise on the 24 -hour day and use long ages instead, even though it's clear in the

Bible that God created on an ordinary day timeline. Yeah, it's true. That would mean that only one of the views in Genesis can be accurate.

Dan, do you believe the Ten Commandments were written by God's own hand? I thought Moses wrote them on stone.

Take a look. It says here in Exodus 31 .18, he gave Moses two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written with the finger of God.

So it looks like God himself wrote the Ten Commandments. Do you think he was right or left -handed?

Dan, God is always right. Really? Do you remember the wording surrounding the

Fourth Commandment? Not offhand, but let me guess. It's context. Bingo. Here, take a look.

It says in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. So there it is again. One book after Genesis, six days.

And in the Ten Commandments, no less. So what do you think God wanted the Israelites to believe when he said this?

Long ages and eras or real days? Well, he's talking about the

Sabbath, which is an actual day in the week. God wouldn't lie about how many days he made the earth.

So it had to be six literal, ordinary days. So why do you think some people try and make it more?

I don't know. I mean, it would seem from this passage that God told us what to believe and what to model our lives after.

Six days of work, then rest on the seventh. If you think about it, our weeks have been like this ever since the beginning.

I mean, we don't have a five -day week, right? Well, it's actually been tried before.

Back in the 1920s, the Soviets tried a five -day week and a six -day week, but it was a major failure.

So they went back to a seven -day week. Really? It seems to be kind of hardwired into human existence, as though God designed it to work.

Six days and take a rest on the seventh. Plus, if you look at the context of the

Ten Commandments, it wouldn't make much sense if nine of the Ten Commandments are literal and one is figurative.

Good point. I mean, how could lying, stealing, and adultery be figures of speech? It's pretty black and white, just like the days of creation.

And we certainly don't work for six long ages, and then we rest. No, that's true. Once I had to work for ten days straight, and it was the weirdest thing.

I started to lose track of time. I didn't even know what day it was. Exactly. God gave us a day of rest to reset our internal clocks.

God didn't have to give us that seventh day, but he knew we needed it. So what happens if we don't believe in a literal six days?

Well, if the days in Genesis 1 are not real days, the only alternative is that Genesis is poetic or figurative.

Yeah, I heard that in class. The big challenge is where does figurative end and the truth start?

If the genealogies starting with Adam were contrived and the earth is much older than 6 ,000 years, then what?

Was Adam real, the Tower of Babel, the Resurrection? And whose truth is the real truth?

I mean, I guess it becomes a slippery slope. Unfortunately, it does. Besides, the other views of creation you mentioned emerged just in the last couple of centuries.

Before the Enlightenment, the majority of church teachings held to the historical view of Genesis. The Enlightenment?

Back in the 18th century, the elite in society decided that they wanted to get away from the Bible and create their own truth.

Man became his own god. Wow, that's scary. Unfortunately, it seeped into the church and continues today.

Imagine how these other creation views undermine the authority of Scripture. They insert millions of years that aren't in the text.

Wow, so if you allow millions of years in there, you also allow evolution in. Yep. This caving in on the authority of Scripture certainly doesn't help

Christianity. This compromise has had a huge effect on young people. Well, think about it. If the

Bible isn't true, then there's no moral compass. Truth is relative. So, we've been talking about the

Old Testament, but is there any evidence for literal creation in the

New Testament? Actually, there is. I knew you were going to say that. Jesus referred to the

Old Testament over 40 times. Every single time, he treated the Old Testament literally and historically.

Like what? Well, for instance, in Mark 10, 6, Jesus mentioned that God created man and woman at the beginning of creation, not long ages after creation.

Interesting. I think I see the difference. Jesus also references other

Old Testament stories as true events, such as Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah and the great fish, plus many more.

If you think about it, Jesus was there to witness the events. Exactly. Paul says in Colossians 1 that everything was made by Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus.

And in him, all things hold together. Jesus was there to see everything happen. Okay, this is all really convincing, but what difference does it make if it was 6 days, 6 ,000 years ago, or a million years ago?

All that matters is that we believe in Jesus, right? That's a great question, and there are a lot of great answers.

I guess when you use God's infallible word, it does get predictable, but also reliable.

When we look back at past events to try to figure out what happened, we call that historical science, kind of like using forensics to find out who did the crime.

You see, those who believe in a long age and those who believe in a young earth both have the same data.

So what's the difference? I mean, if it's the same data, how do we get such different ideas about the history of life on earth?

Well, one submits to the author of Scripture, relying on Scripture to tell us about the history of the world, our origins, and our purpose.

The other assumes it takes billions of years to form the universe, all based on evolutionary views of historical science.

It really does come down to these two choices, doesn't it? Pretty much. And the other important issue to consider is death before sin.

Okay, what's that have to do with the gospel? Well, what does the Bible say about the

Garden of Eden? Perfect world, no death, no suffering. It was so great that even

God called it very good. The Bible even says that animals and people were vegetarians in the original creation.

What? No steak? No stuffed trout? Are you sure God called it good? Yeah, I know.

But that's the way it was. Adam and Eve pretty much had free reign on creation. The only thing

God asked them not to do was to eat from the fruit of the tree of good and evil.

Do you really think it was an apple tree? Could have been. Could have been a mango. Truth is, we don't really know what it was.

But if it was a cauliflower tree, it probably wouldn't have been so tempting. Truth is, God told them if they ate of the tree, they would surely die.

But we do know that because of Adam's sin, death and decay was introduced into this amazing pure world, and still our sin continues to bring death and suffering and bloodshed into the world.

That's a pretty sobering thought. Look here in Romans 5 .12.

It says that sin entered into the world, the whole cosmos, through the sin of Adam and Eve.

As a result, God cursed our work, the ground with thorns and thistles, and pain and childbirth.

In Romans 8, it says the entire creation is subjected to futility and groans and labors under the weight of sin.

Okay, I think I'm getting this, like entropy. Everything is breaking down, even across the universe.

Man's sin goes far and wide, but God had a plan to redeem and restore his creation.

Jesus. You're catching on. Because of sin and the curse, Jesus had to come and die, break the curse of sin for all time.

Here's a question. What type of crown did Jesus have on the cross? It was a crown of thorns.

Thorns. Okay, the curse. So Jesus was literally taking the curse of sin on himself at the cross.

So if Adam and Eve were just fiction and there was no original sin, the entire reason for Jesus coming down is irrelevant.

He died for nothing. There was no curse to redeem. If that's true, then everything we believe in is vain.

Exactly. That's why these things are so important. If we believe the Bible from the very first verse, from a perfect world to the fall to redemption, then

Jesus' death on the cross makes perfect sense. It really does. It's either death and suffering from millions of years before Adam or a perfect creation marred by original sin only 6 ,000 years ago.

It's my personal belief that a person can truly be saved by the blood of Jesus. But if they believe in long age, you have to discount a very important part of the

Bible and deny some of the teachings of Jesus. Then why do some believers still support the long ages idea?

I don't know. My guess is they feel pressured to be accepted by the mainstream or they just haven't fully thought through why they believe the way they do.

Throughout my time as a Christian, I've seen many people compromise on the creation account as well as other parts of the scripture.

Most of the time, they really don't know how much it's costing them and their families. If we trust the entire

Bible is true, then I believe blessings will come to those who completely embrace the whole scripture.

Wow. That's some great insight. Hey, thanks for meeting up with me and being patient and answering my questions.

I've learned a lot. Well, thanks for being open and patient with hearing me out.

All right. Next week, same time, same place? You can count on it as long as we're counting our days the same way they were counted in Genesis.