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

I guess that is why it is important what you decide the biblical context of Gen 1 is. I think the biblical context is establishing God’s reign. So, I think the focus of creation week is the domains encompassed and ordered by God’s rule, not the method or chronology of material creation. (More thoughts on “speaking” and creation to follow.) Even setting aside the Walton functional/material distinction, the idea of the creation week setting up domains of God’s rule which are then filled with inhabitants is found in the framework interpretation that sees Genesis as a historical (although poetically figurative) account of material creation.

As I understand the Sabbath, it was a sign of the covenant. (“the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you from generation to generation. It is given so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.”) The covenant was given so that God could establish the glory of his name among all the peoples of the earth. So the observance of the Sabbath seems to me to be primarily about glorifying God among the nations.

The Sabbath, although it benefits people to rest from labor, is primarily an act of worship that is supposed to point the watching world to the Lord of heaven and earth. People order their own lives and provide for their own well-being through work for six days, but on the seventh, they acknowledge that there is only one king on the throne of the world, and that king is the Creator God who has been ruling since he took up his rest on the throne of his temple on the seventh day of creation. All ordering of chaos starts with him, all provision for creation depends on him. All our work is done in our role of stewards and representatives, not as autonomous rulers who can make a name for ourselves through our labors (like they tried to do at Babel). It seems pretty clear to me that the institution of the Sabbath and the honoring of it by his covenant people is more about living humbly under God’s rule and reign than it is about imitating God by taking a break every seven days.

I think this idea of recognizing God’s lordship in the Sabbath fits well with the idea of Jubilee too. Jubilee was also a Sabbath designed to point to God’s ultimate lordship over his people. No one could build up a kingdom for themselves if every 50th year property was redistributed and God’s ordering of the land and society was reinstated with the freeing of slaves and cancelling of debts. A year of living off of God’s provision, not human effort sounds a lot more to me like an exercise in obedience and submission than just a vacation for people. It was a chance for Israel to do something no surrounding nation would imagine doing in order to give God glory for his provision of their needs and sovereignty over their people. (Lev 25:10-12)

Agreed…except for your penultimate word. See “The Age of the Earth” Is Shorthand.

My view on “the age of the earth” as described in the OP does not hinge on the view I take of Gen 1:1-2 to which you are referring.

I agree that there are issues to be worked out between Gen 1 and 2, but I can’t imagine they would work out to the first man and woman created by God in Gen 1 being different from the first man and woman described in Gen 2. As long as it’s the same couple being created on day 6, the timer on the human race was started with them…and that brings the genealogies into the equation.

I don’t see any reason to start counting Adam’s 930 years at some point other than the point from which it’s counted for all his progeny - that is, from the point of appearance on earth.

I take my view not from how I interpret Gen 1-2 but rather from the collective witness of Gen 1-2, Ex 20:8-11, and Ex 31:12-17. Per 2 Cor 13:1, whenever I see two or three scriptures lining up to say the same thing, I don’t feel a liberty to ignore.

Please help me understand your second point here. I really want to understand, but do remember I am a layman. Assume - only for discussion’s sake - that the universe was supernaturally created in six days, that adding the genealogies give us an age of the earth in thousands of years. Other than remembering that projections of earth’s history beyond thousands of years produces unreliable results, how would anything a doctor or scientist does need to change? If - and I acknowledge that you think it’s an insurmountable “if,” so this is just, as I say, for discussion’s sake - the Bible truly is circumscribing an age of the earth (i.e. the earth is young), why can’t scientists look at findings beyond those limits in the same way a driver is warned against assuming the proximity of vehicles from the image of them he sees in the exterior passenger-side convex mirror?

I have been mulling over the idea of God speaking creation into being and what that means. I think you are right when you say that the focus is not on a specific process. But I also don’t think the focus is on a historical event so much as the focus is on God’s authority and power.

All throughout Scripture, God’s word does not merely describe reality it creates reality. God’s words are often “performatives,” which in linguistics refers to utterances in which someone with the proper authority effects a new reality by a speech act (I pronounce you man and wife, I christen this boat the Roosevelt, I sentence you to life in prison). God orders creation by the power of his word, which is testimony to his authority and lordship over the material universe which is his. How do we know that Yahweh is the one true God? Because he is the Creator God whose words all of reality obeys and is subject to. It is my impression that the authority over material reality aspect is much more in focus in the OT than the mere fact that God is the source of material reality, which was often taken as a given.

God’s supreme authority via his word is the apologetic found throughout the OT and reflected in the NT in Jesus. How does Jesus establish his divine authority? He changes reality with his words. You are healed. You are forgiven. Be still. Come out of that man. Little girl, get up. Lazarus come out. It is finished. Exerting authority over the chaos of nature, sickness and death, sin, and powers of darkness was clearly understood as Jesus claiming divine lordship over creation, lordship that was only rightfully exercised by the Creator God himself.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, those are my jumbled thoughts that maybe have something to do with this conversation and maybe (now that I have typed it out) are somewhat tangential. :grimacing:

2 Likes

We have avoided science by intention. I do not want to press science in a way that causes others to sin. However to answer this, we have to dip into it.

Let us talk about seekers and science students. For them, at least for a long time, the rearview mirror story will not work. The problem is not the logic of the story, but that seekers and science students will get into the details of the science. The details here would alter your view. You would see (1) the intricate mathematical coherence of the evidence for an ancient earth, which seem designed to fool us if the earth is young, (2) for your analogy to hold that God would create this coherent false evidence (other than deceit) to make sense of #1, and that purpose is not given for God, but it is for the auto manufacturer, and (3) there are a whole ton of YEC voices making untrustable arguments in science, and knowing science that are not even remotely convincing.

First, that there is piles and piles of evidence that seem to show a history in the Earth. Moreover, we cannot even mathematically conceive how it is possible to see stars in the sky if the whole universe was created just 6,000 years ago. If you care to understand, this blog is very helpful for someone from your background ( https://thenaturalhistorian.com/ ). This book too is excellent, full of pictures where you can see for yourself the complex stories told in the grand canyon ( https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Canyon-Monument-Ancient-Earth/dp/0825444217 ). The sum effect of this is that we see with our eyes something everywhere in science, that YEC asks us to ignore and stand against everyone else who sees it too. All this confidence is based on ambiguous passages in Scripture. Perhaps some can do that, but it comes off like this version of God is not coherent with the world itself (not just science).

You have the luxury of ignoring studying that evidence. I respect that you trust us that it exists. However, I make my living building mathematical models of that evidence. I do not have the luxury of ignoring it, nor does anyone in science. Even if we find a place in science that does not bring us into contact with the age of the earth, we are surrounded with people immersed in that evidence. It is really what we see. Perhaps we see things wrong, but it will take a great deal of trust to move away from something so obvious, and it takes time to build that trust.

Second, in the mirror story, the auto maker has a purpose in the distortion of the mirror, to increase the field of view of the mirror. This is a logical possibility for the age of the earth too, but we do not really see in Scripture a reason why God would create a false history in the earth. Perhaps He has a reason and purpose, and he certainly does not owe it to us to tell us. This is why I resist jumping to the “deceitful” accusation. However, it would help to at least develop some theology to make sense of this, to speculate why. Failing this, it is very hard to understand why God even hypothetically do this. Without that reasoning, we are left with a gaping hole in the account. Perhaps the earth is young, but looks ancient, but why would God do that?

Third, with #2 in view, there is a lot of “noise” on the internet of YECs promoting really absurd scientific arguments. Most cannot rest in the mystery of #2, so they advance the scientific arguments. If you are in science, you quickly find out that these arguments are very weak. They are nothing like the rigorous studies you are trained to do in science. This becomes a massive stumbling block to faith. While you @Mike_Gantt are not responsible for this, it is a reality in this world.

With those three things, it will not be viable for most seekers and science students to just ignore that evidence, insist it is wrong, based on an ambiguous passage of Scripture. That makes it consequential. For this reason, outside the Church, YEC is seen as a marker of evidence-deny madness, that proves their “god” is not trustworthy. Even if that characterization is unfair, for some YECs it has some grains of truth.

That makes this question consequential for people in the world, including most important science students and seekers.

Remember, this is not consequential to our faith. So remember 1 Corinthians 9:20-22. That is the Biblical reason to accept the scientific view.

1 Like

Meditating on this a bit, perhaps some versions of God do admit a reason. In many versions of Buddhism, we reach enlightenment, escape from suffering, by recognizing that what we think is reality is really an illusion. In this theology, we might expect God to create the world discordant with His word in order to help us detach from it. This God, also, is not concerned about revealing his identity, so we might even guess lovingly He created the the Bible to guide people into YEC, and then into the contradictory evidence of nature. The purpose here is to remind us that reality is just an illusion.

Now I am not a Buddhist, nor are you, and I mean no disrespect to Buddhist that might read along. I would imagine, many versions of Buddhism would reject that possibility, but at least it gives us a way to conceive of a honest God that could make a world that looked so assuredly different from how he described it, without being deceitful either.

I wonder if you can construct a theology that make sense with the God we know from Scripture.

@Mike_Gantt , you wrote this in response to @Christy’ s comments:

“On your view, Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 would have ancient Israel bearing witness to all surrounding nations - - [a] not that the Creator of heaven and earth completed His work in six days … but [b] that He completed it according to a literary trope.”

If you weren’t so grimly white-knuckling your opposition to “continued creation” this would almost be amusing.

Can you imagine if I rejected all the natural sciences because they rejected the plain statement that God stores snow and hail in orbit around the Earth? No matter what you or @Swamidass might say about It, I have an iron-clad text where God explicitly states to Job that he stores Snow and Hail. Its there in unmistakable terminology.

And yet we know the scribe got it wrong.

That’s not how God makes snow and Hail. So if you want to say the scribe wasn’t wrong… …but that he was just using literary license… then your very subtle problem with continued creation immediately disappears!!

I think you owe the millions of future Christians the humility of being able to admit that it is far more likely that you are mistaken about the impossibility of continued creation … than that the scribe was correct about the storehouses of Snow and Hail.

1 Like

Checkpoint on the Question (Proposed)

I have some questions for you about your suggestion, but first I think it would help for me to check our current overall progress with respect to the question that launched this thread. That is, we are over 200 posts into the discussion and I think we have indeed made some progress so I want to check and see if you share that view, lest I assume things I shouldn’t.

To repeat the question that launched the discussion: “What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?”

When I say “we have made some progress” I am referring to some key points of agreement I think we have found between each other. By “points of agreement” I do not mean that either of us has necessarily changed his position in any material way, but rather that we have come to have a common view of how the question can be best thought through. When I say “we” I am referring myself and generally to “the BioLogos regulars” (BLR’s) but specifically to you, @Swamidass. I know that there is variation in views about this question among BLR’s, but it’s difficult to nail down points of agreement where there’s variation, so I’m going to single you out and hope you and other BLR’s don’t mind my using you as a representative for the whole. Therefore, hereafter in this post “you” refers to @Swamidass, and “we” or “us” refers to you and me. Individual BLR’s who don’t hold your view can make necessary adjustments in their own minds. (As for those BLR’s who shy away from the expression of “high view of Scripture” that I use below, I have never thought that they could help me with this question; maybe other questions, but not this one :wink:)

At the end, I’m going to ask you to correct or confirm the following:

A person’s biblical reasons to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old can fall into one of four categories. For this analysis, we are talking about persons who have a high regard for the findings of science and who have a high view of Scripture (specifically, that it is God’s revelation to humanity through His apostles and prophets). We also assume that into whatever category a person falls, he falls there in sincerity of heart and with a clear conscience before God. Falling into any of the first three categories would allow such a person to accept the scientific view; only if he fell into the fourth would he be right in the sight of God to withhold assent. When I say “the scientific view” I mean strictly the scientific view of an earth that is billions of years old - not science in general. When I say “age of the earth” or “old earth” or “young earth” it is shorthand language - not a myopic focus on a number of years. With respect to the question at hand, these four categories are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

  1. He believes the Bible is silent about the age of the earth (e.g. Walton)
  2. He believes the Bible speaks clearly that the earth is old (e.g. gap theory or day-age theory)
  3. He believes the Bible speaks ambiguously about the age of the earth
  4. He believes the Bible speaks clearly that the earth is young

That’s it. Do you think this is an accurate framing of how we jointly see this issue? If not, please suggest edits that can make it so.

P.S. I could not have parsed the categories this finely when I launched the thread, so it is definitely progress for me. Perhaps you already saw things this clearly; I’m not suggesting you didn’t.

P.P.S. See “Checkpoint on the Question (Confirmed)” below.

2 Likes

Doesn’t the fact that you speak of a spiritual realm equivalent to hearing verbalized, literal, audible words make clear that you realize that it is not necessary to assume that God uttered “literal audible words” involving actual speech as we know it and that sound waves weren’t necessarily involved?

Also, you say “it’s clear from the Scriptures that angels hear God speak” but:

(1) Does the Bible make clear that all angels have ears for detecting sound waves which God modulated in order to communicate his will in Genesis 1? Or do you simply mean that God during “creation week” used some physical means by which to communicate his will by means of the vibration of molecules?

(2) Did angels already existed in the context of Genesis 1?

Obviously Genesis 1 describes God as exercising his will over his creation. But I’m saying that the language used (e.g., “And God said…”) is in itself a concession to human limitations. We don’t know exactly how (or even generally how) God’s creative will is exerted but surely we can agree that likening it to a powerful authority speaking aloud and all/everything “obeying” those spoken orders makes a lot of sense in every and any culture. People cultures unfamiliar with the God of the Bible would probably assume that the God in Genesis 1 issued his commands using his vocal cords. But is that an interpretation required by the Genesis 1 text? Why or why not?

I’m not trying to demand a particular interpretation. I’m mostly just trying to understand your position, Mike. I see the central purpose of Genesis 1 as describing God as the sole creator of everything. I understand you to be saying that God speaking everything into existence is the central purpose—and that the speaking in Genesis 1 is not just an anthropomorphic literary technique. Am I understanding you properly?

Are you saying that God spoke the universe and all that is in it into existence is a significant purpose for Genesis 1 that has implications well beyond God created the universe? If yes, what are those important implications which are missed by those who assume “God created the universe” is the central theme of Genesis 1?

[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:213, topic:36256”]
I re-read my sentence to see what I said that you had taken as offensive. I think I can see how you thought I was being pejorative by saying “because scientists say so” - but I wasn’t.[/quote]

You were, at a bare minimum, being inaccurate. I assure you that Jonathan doesn’t accept things on mere hearsay, as he had to point out to you not once, but twice!

No, you don’t. In fact, there’s an explicit request that you avoid doing so in the FAQ:

Focus on discussing other people’s ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived “tone.” Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.

[quote]As for my broader view on the subject, I do not consider scientific conclusions to be hearsay, but neither do I consider them the word of God.
[/quote]I don’t either.

I wasn’t asking for your view, just pointing out that your idea that Jonathan “seems to believe” in something scientific because of mere hearsay is wrong. I have no idea what would cause you to propose something like that.

I don’t see why you repeatedly, whether consciously or not, present science as mere hearsay. Perhaps it might offer a clue as to why you resist treating evolution the same way as you treat heliocentricity.

1 Like

Then you’d need to examine the scientific evidence for yourself to resolve your dilemma, but you’ve repeatedly precluded doing so.

Hi Mike,

Happy to help. In chapter 11 of Lost World of Genesis One, Walton states that some New Testament texts can reasonably be construed to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, particularly since the Greeks were interested in the subject of material origin. He specifically cites Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2, and Hebrews 11:3 as supporting the doctrine.

He also notes that none of these passages give an “account” or “story” of creation ex nihilo that could form a natural history that could be investigated by scientific methods.

I regret that I cannot supply page numbers, as I only have the book available through the Audible app on my phone.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like

Jonathan, I’d take issue with that.

I’d say one only needs a willingness to practice the scientific method (testing hypotheses) and then examine a smidgen of the evidence (not what anyone says about the evidence) for one’s self.

2 Likes

Yes I would agree. But I think that to understand the scientific method properly and examine the evidence for yourself, you do need a modicum of education. I wasn’t saying “You just need go to high school and someone will tell you what to believe”, which I suspect may have been how I was read.

Mike, you have asked a question several times, which I’m not sure has been answered. Your question has been, basically, “What does Genesis 1 mean if not, ‘God did it’ ?”

Basically the chapter says, “The god of Israel created the world,” or “The god of the Hebrews created the earth.” I may be wrong, but no one seems to say that you are wrong in this. That is what it means, basically.

Over the centuries, many tens of thousands of people have written about the meaning of Genesis 1, and chapter 2. To answer your question, “What does it mean?” would take many volumes.

Like you, I don’t have billions of years to devote to any task, except one. I want to living a full, meaningful life with integrity and honesty.

I assume you are a sincere believer who wants to live a virtuous, loving life, becoming Christ-like in every way possible. Your fellowship has told you that a literal, seven-day Creation is essential to believe and accept. Go for it. But you have a life to live. You will have to decide what to focus on in order to love the people around you, how can God use you the most.

I don’t believe in a literal, seven day creation. I used to. It was a fundamental teaching in my fundamentalist church. And many people have found great fulfillment and manifested a lot of spiritual fruit, Christians who do believe in 7-Day Creation.

God will work through you, and others will find the rest they hunger for. “Come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest for your souls.”

I’m an intellectual, too. We intellectuals struggle with things that others don’t. We need to figure out what is keeping others from experiencing God’s rest. When I am not experiencing rest, I need to do whatever is necessary to experience that Rest.

For now, while you are still interested in the meaning of the Genesis creation account, there are lots of online resources, and probably tens of thousands of books on the topic (many of them in French, German, Swahili, Russian, Spanish, Latin, and Chinese). All sorts of people have written on it: fundamentalists and liberals, protestants and Catholics, Europeans, Latin Americans, and Africans, the Church Fathers, Reformers and Counter Reformers, the list goes on.

Personally, I don’t recommend making a career out of it. But if that’s how God leads you, then do it. Maybe for a year or five. Find out what other people (who may believe things very different from you) have written about Genesis 1 & 2… You can widen your reading, or eventually put the Genesis Creation account on the back burner and get on with your life among human beings.

Yeah, message to self!

3 Likes

The opening of Hebrews (1:1) informs us that God spoke to Israel’s ancestors in “many and various ways…” In fact, let’s just quote this in full (NRSV):

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

I, like you, Mike, also am interested in letting Scriptures inform us about how to understand prior Scriptures. That is why I find it odd that you seem to be hung up with actual mechanics of sound/word as if God the Creator actually used a human larynx to form certain words … could one be forgiven for thinking you might feel contentious about the proposition that it wasn’t King James English used to speak creation into being? I don’t actually think that you do think that, mind you – but do you at least see then how others might find the mechanics of verbalization itself to be a strange fixation in the midst of these spiritual topics?

The early Hebrews writer apparently does not share any such qualms about using “speaking” in its much wider sense as happening in many and various ways. It does indeed come through human voice boxes – those of the prophets and Jesus himself. But we don’t use these passages to insist that God must verbalize in the limited way we humans do any more than we take passages that boast of what the “arm of the Lord” has accomplished to mean that God also must have human arms like ours. We should probably learn to give metaphor its due. The early Scriptural authorities such as Paul had no problem with this and I should think you would be more interested in following their lead rather than the lead of certain more recent Creationist dogmas.

We think of God in many human-centered terms such as: King. And we are familiar with the idea that Kings issue “decrees”. They command that something get done – and it is. Jesus commends the Roman centurion for just this recognition of how power can work with nobody going on to quibble about “well, actually the commander didn’t do that job -it was really his servants that did the work. All the commander did was give the order.” Nobody cares about the mechanics of the situation – did the commander actually speak the order? Or did he write it down somewhere? If so, what was the language used? None of that matters. We feel satisfied just to know that the commander’s wishes get carried out. And so there isn’t any surprise that we anthropomorphize God as just such a powerful King. God’s decrees bring about the intended results. When all this anthropomorphic description takes on a bit too much life of its own, God reins us in with reminders like he gave to David: “So you think you’re gonna build a house that could actually suffice for me, do you? How quaint! Give it your best shot (and thanks for the thought anyway! I can honor that.)” I feel like this same kind of warning is needed for so many of determined Creationist bent today: “So you think you’ve got me all fitted within one of your own narrow Scriptural traditions, do you? Well, at least some of your spiritual brothers and sisters are recognizing a fair bit more of the magnitude of even just my physical creation! Of course they get a bit cocky too thinking they’ve got me somewhat figured out. It’s a human thing, I know; I made you after all. Now … about how you’re all treating each other …”

I appreciate the attempt, Chris, but, alas, I am having trouble aligning your Audible version reference points with my Kindle version.

I won’t trouble you further with specifics. I have been able to track down the verse citations you give through the index, but what I find is not what I’d call a strong biblical case for God being responsible for “material origins,” as Walton calls them. I think it is rather an assumption he makes and imputes to the biblical text.

As I’ve said, I examined Walton’s thesis a few years ago and was disappointed. Because so many here speak highly of him, I decided to give him another and closer examination. All I can say so far is that it has disappointed me even more this time around. That’s not your fault, and I’m sure it doesn’t please you to hear. I’m not trying to rile you up; I’m just giving you some honest feedback. In sum, Walton’s construct seems artificial and he applies it arbitrarily. I just don’t find him convincing. I think someone already convinced that science has cornered the market on origins history would be easier for him to convince. No point in you and I arguing about any of this though.

Thanks for your help just the same.

Hi Mike,

It’s been a good, and I hope informative, discussion. I just want to confirm that I understand your reasoning as we conclude our tete-a-tete.

Unlike Walton, you believe that Colossians 1:16,17 and Hebrews 1:2 definitely have nothing to do with material origins:

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

And contrary to Walton, you believe that Genesis 1, which depicts a beginning state of

  • the earth as tohu wa bohu (in Hebrew), and
  • the deep is covered by darkness, and
  • God’s wind blows upon the waters

…and continues with God setting the various domains of creation into an arrangement suitable for His and our inhabitation…

…and reflects the temple habitation literature of the neighboring cultures…

is really all about material origins, and not about functional origins. And you believe this because you think that the weekly cycle ending in Sabbath is designated as an exact historical reenactment of Genesis 1, rather than a symbolic reenactment, and also because you believe that, notwithstanding the fact that Augustine and Calvin disagree with your hermeneutics, it is not viable to appeal to accommodation.

Please take the last word in our discussion as you feel appropriate.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like

Alas, Chris, it seems that whenever I disagree with you or Walton about A, you assume that I must think B and deal with me on that basis…when what I actually think is C. Thus our communications with each other never seem to fully connect. Even in this last post you have misunderstood my position on almost every point. I don’t think it would be helpful at this point for me to try to respond point by point. Let me just say that I appreciate your trying to help me with Walton. I have not given up on him completely, but I’ll labor on a bit longer without bothering you about it anymore. Thanks for your efforts.

If we are “made in God’s image” then we should have the smarts and common sense to separate data from myths. Technically, a “myth” is a “story of of beginnings” that infers neither truth nor fictional history. The history of human knowledge has been a time line of our human technical ability to make tools and take measurements.

1 Like

Not sure I would put it that way. The way you have it layed out, it is not necessarily mutually exclusive, and also misrepresents gap theory and day-age. It also does not give the best option for someone like you. The options I see are,

  1. The BIble is ambiguous (or silent) about the age of the earth.
  2. The Bible is ambiguous about the age of the earth, but one answer (young or old) seems to fit best.
  3. The Bible is clear about a specific age (young or old)

I think if one believes #3 and the answer is young, then they are pretty much stuck with that view. However, if one thinks #2 and a young earth fits best, they are still free to accept the scientific account. I think that may be the best option for you.

As for gap-theory and day-age, I’m not sure which one is correct. I’m not saying that the Bible clearly teaches these, but that the viability either option makes the teaching of Scripture unclear on the age of the earth. The fact that the two of us come to different view of this after honest study is prima facie evidence that Scripture is unclear here. Given that communicating the age of the earth is not the purpose of Genesis, this is not surprising, and I think that options #1 and #2 are both understandable. #3 is hard to see.

3 Likes