What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?

Faith & Science Conversation
109

You need to demonstrate that your reading of the genealogies is correct. The fact that no one else in the entire Bible seems to know anything about people who lived for centuries (even when the people in the genealogies are referred to earlier in the Bible, and even when they are placed in other genealogies), is strong evidence that your reading was not shared by the Bible’s writers.

It seems to me that it’s the genealogies which are your only real issue; the six days of Genesis 1 can be 24 hour days (as I believe they are), without requiring the earth to have been created 6,000 years ago. So the genealogies are the only reason why you think the earth might be very young.

1 Like
110

@Kendal

I have now read your posts to me 2-3 times. Moreover, although I was already familiar with the work of John Walton, Tim Mackie, and Peter Enns, I nonetheless listened to the Mackie talk and read the Enns article at the two links you gave me. In other words, I have invested significant time to understand what you are saying to me.

I do not reject, but rather embrace the general thrust of your comments and the authors you have cited. That is, I believe 1) it is helpful to appreciate the cultural contexts in which the biblical texts originated and potentially crippling to ignore them, and 2) it is a mistake to expect the Bible to speak scientifically. I arrived at these two conclusions in years past. In other words, your contributions here have not brought me to these conclusions; I was already there. That’s not to say your contributions are unhelpful to me; on the contrary, I found them refreshing and reinforcing. And, as always, I pick up new details and nuances when someone like you - and those biblical scholars - remind me of important things.

All that said, I don’t feel that you really appreciate the two obstacles I cited above in the OP that heads this thread. The understanding of creation’s seven days is consistent from Genesis to Exodus, throughout the Old Testament, and from the New Testament down to today. I know that Walton dismisses this point by saying that the Bible only makes claims about functional origins and makes no claims about material origins, and that Mackie says that Gen 1-2 is about theology and has nothing to do with chronology. I really like and appreciate Walton and Mackie, but on this particular point I do not find them persuasive or even plausible. There’s too much in the Bible - not just Gen 1-2 - about those seven days to just ignore.
Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 are the joint pivot from which all biblical references prior and all that follow concerning the creation week turn. I plead with you to please re-read carefully what I wrote in the OP - and how I followed up below that with a post titled My Problem Is Not “Day”- It’s "Six Days."

It may turn out that in the OP and the follow-up post, I did not fully defend my view in your eyes because I was, of course, unaware of you when I wrote them. However, I will be glad to fill in any gaps for you if you tell me where you see them. In any case, however, I am very interested in your reaction once you have actually grasped what I am saying. Your reaction to me so far seems to assume that I am unaware of ANE parallels and am reading Gen 1-2 from an AiG-like perspective. Once you see my position more clearly, I think your advice to me can be more helpful.

111

Thanks, @Richard_Wright1.

Actually, I don’t. I didn’t have any problem with what you wrote up to that point. I just don’t understand how you got to that conclusion.

Substituting “rest” for “ceased” doesn’t change my understanding of the passages in question. If you tell me that a painter has a project which he intends to take six days, and completes it according to plan, you could tell me that he “ceased” on the seventh day or “rested” on the seventh day and it wouldn’t materially change the way I understood what you are telling me. Yes, I think the word “rest” in that context communicates more than the word “cease,” and, for that reason, think it’s a better word for the purpose, but it doesn’t change the fundamental point that was communicated as well by other key words in Gen 2:1-3 (“completed,” “done,” “created,” “made”) - that is, creation was fait accompli.

As for “refeshed,” I agree with you that it can only be understood in a spiritual sense as “the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired” (Isaiah 40:28). However, while we cannot see fully into the spiritual realm, it is not that hard to picture God receiving pleasure from reflecting what He had accomplished. Moreover, to think that “refreshed” can only mean muscle restoration and thus is an anthromorphism in that verse, and on that basis throw it out, does not seem warranted. If “taking a word figuratively” works out to disregarding it, I think we have erred.

Thus I do not understand how accepting “rest” and “refreshed” leads to no “need to take the 6-day as history.” But maybe I’ve missed something. If so, please correct me.

Thanks for your candor. Let me massage your dichotomy in places. I don’t think God is telling us in Gen 1-2 “exactly” how the creation happened. Rather, I think He’s telling us about as much as we were told when it was written that Jesus “rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Hush, be still.’ And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm” (Mark 4:39). In both cases, we know that the Lord spoke and the intended result happened, but in neither case are we told “exactly how” it happened. As to the second element of your dichotomy, it seems beyond reasonable dispute that the stories made no attempt to be scientific. But that they were attempting to be historical is debatable and is at the heart of what this thread is about. I don’t think these modifications leave your dichotomy in usable shape.

You seem to be a clear thinker. I hope you will continue to labor with me. I don’t mind being corrected, but I want correction from people who actually understand what I’m saying. Too often people are correcting me based on the assumption that I am an AiG acolyte or according to some other stereotype they hold. I need to help them by continuing to patiently explain my view.

1 Like
112

Though Ussher’s work entails more precision than we need for the question heading this thread, it does include the genealogies in its formulation of an age for the earth numbered in the thousands, not billions. And as I’ve said, I don’t see how anyone could reasonably suggest that discrepancies in the genealogies, or in the accounting of them, could close the gap between thousands and billions.

113

My point wasn’t about mathematics or gaps in the genealogies. My point was that there’s no evidence that anyone in the Bible read the genealogies the way you do. So your appeal to the genealogies is not actually based on anything the Bible tells us about them.

114

Having just completed Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615), it’s easy to see why @TedDavis speaks so highly of it.

For a 400-year-old document, it’s surprisingly easy to read. I’m sure this is due at least in part to the particular translation Ted recommends. Galileo is logical, engaging, and witty in his prose. At roughly 15,000 words, this “letter” is a short book.

Galileo weaves a narrative around his personal experiences with critics as a way of describing how he thinks theology (called “queen of the sciences” in that age) should co-exist and interact with all the rest of the sciences (astronomy, geometry, medicine, etc.). For his authority regarding theology, he leans heavily on the church fathers: Augustine (most of all), Tertullian, Jerome, and also Thomas Aquinas. He concludes his writing with a lengthy defense of “the day the sun stood still” (Joshua 10:12-14), arguing that a Copernican understanding led to a superior interpretation of the passage than a Ptolemaic understanding ever could.

Throughout this little book, Galileo was defending both Scripture and Science (as we would now call the latter) - saying, in essence, that anyone who saw the two in conflict was misrepresenting at least one of them. Thus we could say Francis Collins setting up BioLogos in the early 21st century was something of a parallel to Galileo writing the duchess in the early 17th.

We should ask, however, if the situation Galileo faced is different from the one Collins faces. I think it is quite different, and that difference bears heavily on the question which launched this thread. In the early 17th century, what we call “Science” was a budding movement; today it is a vast and established enterprise, enjoying prestige and power. In Galileo’s time, science operated in the shadow of the church; in our time, the church operates in the shadow of science. But what I’m describing in this paragraph is not the difference that is important to us. It is only the context for the difference.

The important difference between the 17th century and the 21st is that in the former the issue was science whereas in the latter the issue is the history that science projects. The arguments of our time between YEC’s and OEC’s is not about the Bible and science; it’s about the Bible and history. The Bible has never spoken of science but it has always spoken of history. In Galileo’s time, science had not yet begun speaking about history. The major arguments of our time between the Bible and science are not at root about science, they are about history: specifically and most notably, the age of the earth, evolution, and Noah’s Flood.

Because of this difference, Galileo’s letter can only guide us so far. Its utility is limited. He did not foresee what faces us. His letter could be used to support both YEC and OEC views. Somewhere between the early 17th century and now, the “battle” between the Bible and science ceased and instead the clash moved to one between the ancient history of the Bible and ancient history according to science. As is so often the case, many people are fighting the battles of the last war instead of the ones of the present.

Reading Galileo has reinforced and clarified my view that to think there’s something still to be worked out between the Bible and science is to be anachronistic and miss the point. Instead, this is a debate about ancient history - origins - and it can never be settled until we begin addressing it in those terms.

Therefore, if anyone wishes to continue to engage with me, please focus on history. It’s a waste of time to try to convince me that the Bible does not teach science. I’ve been convinced for decades that the Bible doesn’t teach science. Instead, convince me that the Bible doesn’t teach ancient history - including material origins - and you’ll get me to an old earth. I know Walton tries to make that point, but while he’s been edifying on other points, he’s been unpersuasive on that one. Therefore, you’ll need a better argument than his. Thank you for reading this far.

115

I think you need to make the case that the Bible teaches what you claim. Until you’ve done that there’s no argument for anyone to address.

1 Like
116

I should say that I am not interested in convincing you of anything – we all must convince ourselves as a personal act, when it comes to Biblical teaching.

Having said that, I agree with you that the Bible teaches a lot of history (perhaps more than any other history book I have seen), and this history is that of the actions of humanity before God. In this context, the ancient history is mainly of Abraham and his physical and spiritual descendants. The debate (if this is your outlook) has a lot to do with what we come to believe of ourselves as human beings, what we are through our actions (as exemplified through history), what acting in good faith means to us and to God, and the ultimate aim (future/end of history) is to Christians.

On material origins, my personal conviction is that these are understood within the wider historical context I alluded to; so I agree with your remarks on the anachronistic discussions that inevitably bring in poor old Galileo. My outlook is one of harmony between Biblical teaching, the Faith, and science (provided science does not assume it defines personhood and human attributes).

1 Like
117

@Mike_Gantt

Expecting the scribes of Genesis to correctly render the mysteries of Earth’s Creation is like expecting Paul would have known how to run an Apple computer or that Jesus would have known how to fly the Space Shuttle.

118

The creation took six days, the sixth day of which Adam was created. The genealogies from Adam to Messiah, according to Ussher and others, add up to about four thousand years. Inflate that number, if you want, to account for any gaps you think are in the genealogies, and add a couple of thousand years for the time from Messiah until now. It all adds up to thousands of years - not millions, much less billions.

That was too easy, so I must have misunderstood your question. Please advise.

119

I have no expectations that any biblical author would “correctly render the mysteries of Earth’s Creation,” or know “how to run an Apple computer,” or know “how to fly the Space Shuttle.” As I’ve said, I do not expect them to speak scientifically at all. However, when the prophets responsible for the Old Testament give us history, I expect them to be as reliable as when they give us prophecy.

120

Sure. So we are examining the following clause in Gen. 1:2:

The earth was tohu wa bohu.

You have argued that this clause refers to the earth not even existing. The question is: does a study of the Hebrew support this?

Walton notes that the word bohu appears only 3 other times in the Bible, typically paired with tohu. The key word in the phrase, it seems, is tohu, which appears about 20 times in verses that do not refer to origins. How tohu is used in those 20 verses should guide us in understanding Genesis 1:2.

Let me stop here and ask: do you agree with this methodology, Mike? It’s standard linguistics applied to the Bible, in a fashion widely popular among Biblical scholars of every theological persuasion. But you may have some reasons that I do not yet understand to oppose this method, so please let me know if you do.

Walton argues that a good translation for tohu is “unproductive.” I.e., some thing or some person (which already exists) does not have the function it/he/she could or should have. Walton mentions that tohu is applied to desert places, which are very unproductive from the agricultural perspective. He also mentions that idols are depicted as tohu, or worthless.

I actually looked into this myself last night to confirm Walton’s analysis. Tohu is applied to origins in three places (Genesis 1:2, Job 26:7, Isa. 45:18, and Jer 4:23), so we should bracket those off as the verses whose meaning we are trying to discern based on the usage of tohu in the other 16 verses. Here’s how it’s used:

  • Desert places are unproductive (tohu): Deut 32:10, Job 12:24, Ps 107:40, Isa 34:11
  • Things that rival the Lord are worthless (tohu): I Sa 12:21, Isa 29:21, Isa 59:4
  • The destination of the wicked is tohu: Job 6:18
  • A city is broken down (tohu): Isa. 24:10
  • The nations are worthless (tohu): Isa 40:17
  • The judges of the earth are useless (tohu): Isa 41:29
  • Graven images: Isa. 44:9
  • Seeking God is not tohu: Isa 45:19
  • The result of “my” labor is without value (tohu): Isa 49:4

In all these references, we see that tohu is an adjective (occasionally used in adverbial form) that implies that something that exists in a material sense (desert places, things, a destination, a city, nations, judges, graven images, the result of my labor) does not have functional value. You could say that the thing exists in material form, but not in functional form.

There is another reason to think that Genesis 1:2 refers to an earth not having functional value, and that is the parallels in the verse with other parts of the creation that clearly exist as of Genesis 1:2:

“The Earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water” – Jewish Publication Society, 3d ed.

The deep and the waters already exist, but they are likewise in an unusable state. Why would the earth not exist in a similar state?

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like
121

@Mike_Gantt

If the Prophets were able to provide historically sound histories (as well as prophecies) they would have reputations as Historians as well Prophets.

Even the New Testament describes Jesus as having to learn more wisdom as he matured into his role as ‘The Annointed’.

The Book of Esther, the only scripture not found in the extensive Dead Sea scrolls finds, is a Jewish version of “the Magophonia” (the Slaughter of the Magi) first described by the First Historian - Herodotus - where Esther’s climax of a massive purge is a veiled reference to the celebrated Magi.

But nowhere in Esther are the Magi discussed or even identified. The foundation of all reliable histories is to get the correct facts.

122

Jesus trusted both their histories and their prophecies. That’s enough reputation for me. That they were scorned by the world, and even by those closest to them who had the most reason to trust, is not sufficient reason for me to hold them in any less respect than He did.

123

As I have pointed out twice before, you’re doing something the Bible does not do. You’re reading the text in a way the Bible doesn’t. You’re even emphasizing the fact that you’re reading the text the way a seventeenth century western clergyman decided to read it. So your reading does not actually have a Bible basis.

You cannot claim that the Bible teaches these conclusions until you can show this is how the Bible reads the text itself. Where does anyone in the Bible say “Let’s work out the age of the earth by counting the genealogies from creation”, or “We know the aye of the earth by counting the genealogies since creation”?

Even in the pre-Christian era when the “7,000 year plan” was invented, it didn’t use the genealogies.

124

I have not finished this exercise - I still have Kepler to read, and some Bible verses to review - but can report back on the main purpose of the post. That is, the epiphany I experienced reading Galileo has achieved the major purpose for which I undertook the exercise. To be specific, I now understand the reason that I have easily swallowed scientific pronouncements about the interplanetary motion of the earth without even chewing first, and yet continued to choke on scientific pronouncements about the age of the earth and evolution no matter how much I chewed on them: the simple reason being that the former example was about science and the latter examples were about history. Since the Bible doesn’t give us science and does give us history, there was no potential for conflict with the former as there is with the latter.

This doesn’t mean I’ve answered the question that launched this thread, but it does mean that I now understand more clearly than ever why some scientific concepts are so easy for a Bible thumper to swallow and others are not. If it’s a proven scientific concept, there’s no reason to question it. If, however, it involves some history produced by science, the potential for conflict is there - but even when there is conflict between the Bible and such scientifically- generated history, the conflict is with only with the history, not with the science behind it.

125

I agree whole-heartedly with it. I would only object if it were used to the exclusion of other comparisons and other methods. Your use of it seems exclusive in this post, and it makes me wonder why. However, I don’t think we need to concern ourselves with this because I don’t consider my view of the age of the earth to hang on my interpretation of Gen 1:2 and therefore don’t want us to get bogged down in a digression - so let’s just assume for discussion’s sake that Walton’s view of Gen 1:2 is correct (i.e. that the earth pre-existed creation in a “formless and void” state). Therefore, what?

126

@Mike_Gantt

You write:
“I now understand the reason that I have easily swallowed scientific pronouncements about the interplanetary motion of the earth …[while rejecting scientific pronouncements about the age of the earth and evolution] … : the simple reason being that the former example was about science and the latter examples were about history.”

When molecular biologists learn about genomes and geologists learn about the age of the Earth, they are not given Masters and Doctorates in History!

Cosmologists and Astrophysicists that have plotted the orbits of planets around stars are using the same science rule book that Biologists and Geologists are using.

No doubt you are presenting a psychologically plausible reason for your personal reactions to one science vs. another. But the psychological motivation is not a good way to decide which science is valid; if you already accept one facet of science, it is the basis for why you should adjust your preconceptions of ‘Biblical Perfection’ … rather than reject a vast portion of the Universe that is a part of the realm of the Perfect God.

127

If your point is that there is, strictly speaking, no biblical basis for seeking to know the age of the earth, I quite agree. I cannot imagine the Lord Jesus thinking, “If only Mike Gantt would get right on the age of the earth!” Why then do I care about it? Because it is shorthand for larger issues that the Lord Jesus does care about. Let’s begin sketching out those issues for which “the age of the earth” is but a proxy.

The old-or-young earth argument is about whether creation took six days and was completed or has taken 4.543 billion years and is still not complete. It’s an argument about whether God created the universe by supernatural processes or is creating it by natural processes. It’s an argument about whether the Bible - and, specifically the books of Moses, and, more specifically, the book of Genesis - provide reliable ancient history, including information about origins, or whether we should rely instead on scientists to inform us, to the degree they can, about these things. It’s an argument about whether scientists have taken over for the prophets in drawing for us the background arc of human existence and destiny. And this is just the beginning of the sketch.

Does God want me to care about the age of the earth per se? No. But He does want me to have a clear view about the kinds of issues I began sketching out above. There are many reasons why these issues are very important, though I’ll make no attempt to document them here. Suffice it to say that I’ve tried to serve the Lord while being agnostic on these issues, and it is not fruitful. They can be overemphasized, but they can also be underemphasized. It’s an interest in moving from agnosticism to advocacy regarding these important issues that is motivating me. Summing the genealogies is just the means to an end.

128

Yes, a line was crossed without much circumspection.