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

Faith & Science Conversation
221

@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
222

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
223

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?

224

[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
225

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

226

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
227

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
228

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.

229

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
230

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 …”

231

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.

232

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
233

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.

234

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
235

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
236

Checkpoint on the Question (Confirmed)

For expediency’s sake, I will set aside my proposed taxonomy (“Checkpoint on the Question (Proposed)”) and accept yours without question or comment.

I first came to this BioLogos Forum on June 22 asking “Who best reconciles the Bible and Evolution?” Along the way, I launched about a half a dozen other topics, but all related to, and in support of, my original question.

In these discussions, I was finding a lot of engagement but was not making discernible progress toward answering my original question. Most of the responses I was receving were providing scientific arguments and evidence for evolution; I, however, was looking for biblical answers that would either support evolution or at least not prohibit it. I was advised by more than one participant that focusing first on the age of the earth would be a better way of getting to the answer I sought. And so I launched this particular thread on July 15, and have devoted almost all my BioLogos time since then to it.

Your taxonomy makes me question whether narrowing my focus from evolution to the age of the earth has been of any significant value given my interest in biblical rather than scientific reasons. For if the Bible is ambiguous about the age of the earth then I don’t understand the value of focusing on it first. It seems I could have just as easily decided that the Bible was ambiguous about evolution. I’ll have to ponder this and re-think my next step.

1 Like
237

People have been focusing on it because of you, because it’s an issue for you. Because your main issue is that your believe the Bible is unambiguous on the age of the earth and that’s one of your primary reasons for rejecting evolution. Consequently, showing you that it’s wrong to believe the Bible unambiguously tells us the earth is very young, addresses your main issue directly. That’s a biblical reason showing that the Bible doesn’t prohibit evolution, which is exactly what you asked for.

The Bible provides both negative and positive support for evolution, and I think you should address this also.

1 Like
238

A few of your previous posts for context.

I always understood your dilemma as the conflict between the history of the Bible vs. the history of science. That is why I suggested focusing on the age of the earth. If you can come to peace with an old earth evolution would be a piece of cake. Looking for Biblical support or rejection of evolution is like looking for Biblical support or rejection of the germ theory. You are just not going to be able to come up with an answer one way or the other using just the Bible.

Let me suggest a possible way to address your dilemma.

Accept the creation of the earth took 4.5 billion years as indicated by science.

Accept that while Adam was the first human created in the image of God he wasn’t the first homo sapien.

Accept that Eden was a special location on a completed earth where God placed Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were different from the other homo sapiens that were alive at the same time.

Accept that with Adam God’s creation was complete and so He rested.

Then you can use the Bible’s genealogies to date when Adam was created in the image of God and therefore the completion of creation. The only problem is you have to then accept that the description of the creation of the earth was a figurative description and not a literal one. I fear that if you insist on a literal six day creation you are going to remain permanently stuck.

Antoine has a long discussion complete with his interpretation of Genesis to support what I outlined above at A. Suarez’s Treatment on a Pope Formulation for Original Sin’s Transmission I don’t agree with the way he dates Adam and Eve but otherwise he has some good ideas.

New topic for discussion. How long after Adam’s creation did it take him to Fall? Does the Bible say?

Edit to add an additional thought.

What is different between Biblical Genealogies and the genealogy that I do for my family history? Answer, the Biblical Genealogies normally only include the men unless there is a special reason to include a woman. So they look like a chart with one person on top and with just one person at each level below. What does a real genealogical chart look like? Lots and lots of people on the top and slowly ( divide by 2 for each generation) narrowing down to one, me. Of course you can do charts that include aunts and uncles and cousins and then the chart becomes a big waterfall. Why do I say this? Evolution says nothing that would prevent Adam from being a great-great (to the nth degree) grandfather to the entire human race. He just can’t be the single male at the top of the chart. And so in the Biblical sense you can say all mankind has descended from Adam (only the important males included in the genealogies) without requiring that there be no other humans around at the time of Adam.

I believe somewhere around here Joshua S. has written about this.

BTW, I believe the genealogy is done that way because of the One Seed theory of human procreation.

1 Like
239

It’s not that I think I’ve “decided” the Bible is ambiguous about the age of the earth and evolution, it just reads to me as if it is ambiguous. Given the focus of Scripture on Jesus, that is not the least bit surprising.

And yes, if it is ambiguous on the age of the earth, we can wonder if it is ambiguous about evolution. There I point to the text itself, where it says “The land” and “the sea” “give forth” plans and animals of “many kinds.” There is no hebrew word indicating prohibition of reproducing outside of ones kind. One of the best articles of this is: http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/39 . A good paraphrase of Gen 1 is…

“The land and sea gave forth plants and animals of many kinds.”

Which sounds almost too scientifically accurate for their time. Remember, they did not have the words for billions, genetics, DNA, and evolution. Yet we see here that God did not “poof” things into existence. He called the land and sea, and they answered him by producing plans and animals. That sounds like theistic evolution, in the language of ancient hebrew, to me.

Now, I do not think that this was the author’s intent. So I would not call this the intended teaching of scripture. But with that interpretation so obviously there, it is hard not to see Scripture as ambiguous about evolution.

2 Likes
240

I would go further and say that with that interpretation so obviously there, it is hard to see Scripture as anything but harmonious with evolution. The same goes for the very obvious problem of Cain’s wife. Exegetes throughout the ages have wrestled with the extremely clear implication that the text is telling us there were other humans already on the planet, outside the primal family, to whom Cain was not related. This is not a problem which was invented when evolution came along, it was a problem which was recognized as being caused by a particular reading of the text which clearly contradicts with what the Bible actually says; with a different reading, that problem vanishes.

1 Like