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

Faith & Science Conversation
41

I am sorry if I have made you repeat yourself, and I can at least understand the point you seem to make, in that you equate the genealogies with the age of the earth. If I have again misunderstood you, feel free to correct me. But to try and stick to this point, I would say that this way of using genealogies is not even an inference for an age to the earth, and I think other discussions on genealogies and Adam may show. To be precise, you (and I) cannot find any specific section in the Bible that enables us to say, the Bible specifically shows us the age of the earth.

It is this point that makes many arguments derived from days and genealogies open to interpretation and even a matter of taste in some cases. Since you are not pursuing the “days” discussion, I conclude with this point - the Bible does not provide a clear statement that we would equate with a geological age of the earth, nor the creation.

42

@Mike_Gantt

The problem with the geneaologies is that Hebrew geneaological practices seems specifically designed to affirm the lack of precision in the Bible texts… rather than prove it.

Almost every genealogy has an alternate version in another text… especially between Ki.ngs and Chronicles. These are not the foundations for asserting that every word of the Bible should be relied upon.

43

If I understand you correctly you could accept that the six days of creation could be considered long periods of time that could cover the 4 billion year history of the earth. The Problem is how to address the history of the Bible that implies the history of man is in the thousands of years. Think about this. While homo sapiens may have been around for 200,000 years history shows that 50,000 years ago homo sapiens experienced a great change in their behavior (you could also argue for the 10,000 years ago when agriculture started). This is when I believe we became “created in the image of God.” Can you accept that when the Bible says the first man was created that does not necessarily mean the first homo sapiens was created? Adam wouldn’t have to be related to the entire world by genetics but by genealogy. This would give you billions for the age of the earth and thousands for the age of man.

44

I’m not focused on what steers the car. Nor am I saying that the two aren’t linked. I’m just saying they aren’t the same thing, and that the failure of one doesn’t necessarily imply the failure of the other. When a nail punctures your tire does your steering wheel deflate?

One’s frame of reference is highly relevant when applying this statement to our discussion. Outside of the thousands of years in which humanity has existed, who is there to observe “when it happens” and say “See, we were right!”?

Close, but no cigar. Well, maybe not even close. Let me break it down for you phrase by phrase and tell you what I am saying:

No, I’m just saying “geology is science.” I don’t know enough to distinguish great science from not-great science.

No, I’m just saying that any history produced by geology is distinguishable from what is not history in geology. You yourself would say that a history produced by an AiG geologist does not discredit geology, so why should a history produced by a RTB geologist or a secular biologist discredit geology? You can challenge a history without challenging the legitmacy of the discipline that produced the history, just as you can call one of my conclusions worthless without necessarily implying that I am worthless.

No, I’m not saying this. I don’t even know how to interpret geology. I have to leave that to others. The fact, however, that there are AiG geologists and RTB geologists is ipso facto proof that geologists can come to widely disparate conclusions about the age of the earth.

You keep wanting to make this thread about science. I’ve tried to make clear that I accept the majority opinion of today’s geologists on the age of the earth. That’s what sets up this conflict I’m trying to resolve. If I can’t resolve it, I’ll stick with the Bible’s view because it is the word of God. In no case, however, am I trying to out-geologist the geologists. What they see, they see. I believe them when they say “This is what we see.” I just believe that what they see is not all there is to the story, and that what appears to be so is not always so.

45

As I suggested above, one cannot reasonably infer enough imprecision in the genealogies to come up with 4 billion years.

46

I’m actually tempted to try on this jacket and see if it fits. Problem is, I’m not where your first sentence thinks I am.

I could indeed accept understanding “day” as “an indefinite period of time” when reading Genesis 1. However, I lose that ability when I get to Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17. This is because while I see “day” used as “eon” elsewhere in Scripture, I do not see “six days” in its roughly 20 occurrences ever used to mean “six eons.” Moreover, the internal logic of Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:15-17 break down if you try to interpret “day” as “eon” in those passages. Besides all this, Genesis 2:1-3 says that creating stopped after the six days. Even if those days were “eons,” the thinking that arrives at 4.543B years for the age of the earth is based on the assumption that the processes of creation have been at work all this time and have never ceased.

So, while I am grateful for what strikes me as a good faith attempt to help me over the biblical hurdles, I can’t work up the energy to aggressively study and test your proposal for the same reason that the builder can’t put up the walls until the foundation is properly laid.

47

Curious, I regain my ability when I read Deuteronomy 5:12-15 which actually cites a completely different reason why we are supposed to observe the Sabbath. And then it really comes back to me when I read Hebrews 4 where we are invited to enter in to the Sabbath rest as if the Sabbath is not a day but an eschatological event.

1 Like
48

You can accept the usage of day to mean a period of time elsewhere in Scripture but for some reason when it is referred to as six days then it becomes literal? If a day just represents a period of time why would you have trouble accepting six of them to be six periods of time? The pattern is one unit of time out of seven is the Sabbath. When it gets down to the level of a command then it has to become a definite time period of one day. You could say that a day applied to the Lord is a long period of time (think 1,000 years which to the writers of Scripture was a very long period of time) and a day as applied man is a literal day. The basic meaning of day is a unit of time but the actual duration is based on the context. Do you hold to the idea that the seventh day of creation, the Lord’s Sabbath day, is ongoing to this day? And I am on a roll now. How about the Sabbath year? It was one year out of seven to give the land rest. And then you have Jubilee which was a Sabbath of Sabbath years. While you fixate on the Sabbath as being a day can you not agree that in Scripture it really just means a period of time whose pattern is always 1 out of 7.?

The process of creation, as you refer to it, stopped on the sixth unit of time didn’t it? Since man is the highest form of creation wouldn’t the stopping point be when we became the image of God? You could define that point as recently as 10,000 years ago.

If you can’t tell, what I gave you was just a sketch of my personal position. It certainly doesn’t answer all questions. And requires much study to come to grips with the Theology, but it does address the age of the earth quite nicely.

1 Like
49

Day 1 begins in Gen 1:3. Due to the difficult syntax, there are multiple ways to address the relationships between v. 1, v. 2, and vv. 3ff. But, no matter what you do with v. 1, it seems clear from exegesis and discourse analysis of the Hebrew that v. 2 describes a state before vv. 3ff (the Six Days), and I’d say highly likely that v. 2 chronologically precedes v. 1 as well. To simplify this into a question: how long did Gen 1:1-2 take? (Answer: the Bible literally does not say)

Note: the most unlikely reading is to suggest that v. 2 is the result of v. 1. If so, then the text identifies the existence of an earth (v. 2) before whatever vv. 3ff (or v. 1) is describing.

1 Like
50

I’m puzzled.

To explain my puzzlement, here’s a fuller context of the comment of mine to which you were responding:

I share your awareness of the additional reason God gave the Israelites for observing the sabbath of Mosaic law found in Deuteronomy 5:12-15. I also share your enthusiasm for the eschatalogical sabbath referenced in Hebrews 4, for it is greater than the Mosaic sabbath by just as much as the sacrifice of Christ is greater than animal sacrifice. However, I do not understand how either gives you the ability to understand “six days” in Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 as meaning “six indefinite periods of time.” Please explain.

51

You’re misrepresenting science yet again. The “history” you glibly denigrate as “implied” is actually hypotheses and theories that make many, many accurate predictions about what we will directly observe before we observe it.

52

I’m puzzled too. Not at your puzzlement but I don’t really know how to resolve the tension comparing
Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15. God says we are supposed to do the Sabbath because of the pattern of seven days of creation, but then God later says we are supposed to do the Sabbath because of the exodus. So my question then is, which is it God? There’s obviously no pattern of sevens in the exodus (unless I’m not aware of some). For me, the Deuteronomy passage works as a better (or clearer/more updated explanation) because not only is it later in the Scriptures (as our revelation progressed), but there are so many parallels between the Exodus and Christ bringing us into our true rest. So for me, this description supersedes the explanation given in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17.

In other words, something like:

  • In Exodus God says to roast the Passover lamb and definitely not boil it. In Deuteronomy, God says boil it. In Chronicles, God says to roast and boil it (Exodus 12:8-9, Deut 16:7-8, 2 Chron 35:13)
  • In exodus and Deuteronomy, God says Israelites can be slaves and go free after 6 years, in Leviticus, God says they can’t even have Israelite slaves, only foreign ones (Ex 21:2-11, Deut 15:12-18, Lev 25:39-43)

To be honest, I would chalk Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 as the result of an overzealous Israelite intent on keeping the Sabbath to the letter of the law- or perhaps much longer after the Exodus its true significance was starting to come out. I see Deuteronomy 5:12-15 and its strong connection to Hebrews 4, not to mention Jesus revealing the true intent of the Sabbath. Now this is problematic in the sense that traditionally, or at least in more evangelical circles Moses is the author of both texts and he seems to contradict himself.

Clearly six indefinite periods of time is no good for interpreting Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, so you are rightly perplexed. To be honest, I think that even the Israelites were generally convinced that God just did it all in 6 literal 24 hour periods and that was that. It is the best way for God to communicate the main point, that He is Lord of all. What a stumbling block and mockery of the text for God to put billions of years into Genesis 1. It takes away from its timelessness, its beauty, its highly stylized prose that is quite unlike all other writings in almost all of history. If the text said billions of years, then we would have mocked the Genesis text for thousands of years as nobody had any idea how old things were until relatively recently (see: Age of Earth - Wikipedia).

53

You say “but for some reason” as if I did not give the reason. Actually, I gave two reasons. The first one was that all other references to “six days” in the Scripture are to six regular (i.e. 24-hour) days. The second was that the internal logic of Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:15-17 break down if you try to interpret “day” as “an indefinite period of time” in those verses.

Because, as I’ve said, I do not see Scripture elsewhere using this expression to have the meaning you suggest…and because the internal logic of the two cited passages break down if you try to interpret “day” in those verses as “an indefinite period of time.” Therefore, you are arguing for an interpretation of these passages that is 1) unique in all of Scripture, and 2) doesn’t yield a coherent meaning even if such an ad hoc interpretation were to be allowed.

This interpretation is not even specious. That is, your reasoning is not even superficially plausible. There is no logical basis for interpreting those passages to mean “because the Lord worked for six indefinite periods of time and then rested for one indefinite period of time you should work for six definite periods of time and then rest for one definite period of time” - which is what you’re suggesting. The only possible motivation for such an interpretation is desperation to avoid the obvious consequences of the obvious interpretation. [quote=“Bill_II, post:48, topic:36256”]
The basic meaning of day is a unit of time but the actual duration is based on the context.
[/quote]

Yes…but it is the context you are ignoring!

Believe it or not, I am actually willing to believe that “six days” could mean “six indefinite periods of time,” but you have to offer some cogent reasons for doing so!

Whether you believe the seventh day was 24 hours or that it continues until now, its inception marked the cessation of the Lord’s creative actions. How then can you simultaneously believe that natural creative processes have been constantly at work for 4.543B years producing the earth we behold?

?

Yes, I see the pattern applied in more than one way in Scripture, but I see God applying the pattern with consistency. Whereas you seem to scramble them all together and reduce them to “Well, since we recognize a pattern of one out of seven we can choose what period of time we want in any given sentence as long as we keep the ratio 1/7.” (I know you’re not actually intending to be that wild about it, but it is the net effect of your current interpretation of Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:15-17.)

I can agree with you that your position “does address the age of the earth” but I can’t go along with “quite nicely.” I don’t say this with any glee. It just feels like you’re stretching and contorting yourself to painful lengths in order to accommodate pressure that’s coming from outside the Scripture. Every time I’ve come to a better understanding of Scripture it has meant fewer mental contortions, not more.

54

Why do you accuse me of “glibly denigrating” science because I describe its age of the earth as implied. Am I “glibly denigrating” the Bible when I describe its age of the earth as implied? Nature can only imply things to us because it cannot speak otherwise. The Scriptures, by contrast, can both be explicit and implicit with what they have to impart. When it comes to the age of the earth, however, the Bible is only speaks implicitly. In that sense, the Bible and nature are on equal footing.

Granted, when it comes to understanding something we probably all prefer explicit statements to implied ones no matter who the source, but this preference does not amount to denigration of that which is implied.

55

God bless you for your intellectual integrity!

I don’t see them as mutually exclusive. I often gave my children more than one reason to obey their mother and me in a given matter, and especially did I have to do this in their teenage years. The “Exodus rationale” meant that Israel would bear witness to the surrounding nations of idol worshipers that one true invisible God had made the heavens and earth and all that is in them. The “Deuteronomy rationale” meant that Israel could bear this witness to the nations only because God had miraculously liberated them from the bondage of Egypt, giving them a measure of rest that would have been unthinkable to Pharaoh.

Again, sir, I must salute your intellectual honesty.

This, to me, is a very important point and it is one of my biggest struggles in this age of the earth (and evolution, etc.) issue - though I have not spoken of it until now. That is, I think you are absolutely right about what you say here about what Israel thought. Throughout Scripture I see God vindicating His spokesmen, not making them look naive and childish in human hindsight. Why would God have ancient Israel bear weekly witness to themselves and to all the nations who knew them regarding His claim to have created the world in six days knowing it was only a matter of time before He’d have to grossly modify the claim. In fact, “grossly” is understating the matter because the claim would go from “God created the universe in an incredibly short period of time!” to “God created the universe over an incredibly long period of time!” Would God not be eager to give His nation a more lasting message about His role of Creator than that? God’s prophets were always at risk for life and limb, and in return God always sought to vindicate them in due time.

If the truth is that the earth is 4.543B years old, I do not think God would have needed to say “billions” in Genesis 1 in order to better allow for acceptance by Bible thumpers like me. I don’t know Hebrew, but I see enough variety and richness of language in my English Old Testament that there were ample ways God could written Genesis 1 in majestic language that would be no obstacle to modern scientific discoveries. Consider OT phrases you have encountered: “ancient times,” “distant past,” “from the days of eternity,” just to mention a few. God knows how to be obscure and leave room for later revelation when He wants to. The very starkness of the contrast between “six days” and “4.543B years” begs the inquiry, “Why, God, why?” It’s almost as if God wants us in the 21st century to have to choose between a supernatural beginning and a natural one.

56

If a day in Genesis 1 could be a long period of time what requires you to assume that a reference to six days automatically means 6 literal 24 hours when you don’t require that in Genesis 1? All of these six day references you keep mentioning are talking about the commands that man is supposed to be keeping. As a command yes they refer to 24 hour days. When they refer to God they are not required to be a 24 hour day. When God created by just speaking why do you think that required a literal 24 hour day? Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:15-17 make perfect sense when you apply a 24 hour day to man and a God day to God. In fact I don’t think it makes sense to say that God required or used all of the daylight hours of a normal day to create what he created just by speaking. If this is not an indication of a figurative use of day what is?

What do you define as the beginning of the seventh day? The seventh day marked the cessation of the Lord’s initial creative actions. This seventh day was the day following the creation of man in God’s image. God’s creative work has been in progress for 4.543 billion years or six “days”. The beginning of the seventh day therefore was at most 50,000 (possibly 10,000) years ago. Does this not agree with the Biblical history? If you are not seeing this let me know.

Why would accepting that a day to the Lord is not necessarily a 24 hour day when there is Scripture to support that require mental contortions? Peter did say that With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. In fact when you consider that God created time and exists outside of time it makes no sense to try to force a period of time on anything that he does.

57

[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:54, topic:36256”]
Why do you accuse me of “glibly denigrating” science because I describe its age of the earth as implied.[/quote]

Because science is much more than that. You accept much of science as settled fact and you have yet to offer a reason to doubt the science on the age of the earth.

BTW, it’s “inferred,” not “implied,” and science is much stronger than the retrospective inferences in your portrayals of it. In science, the retrospective inferences are tested by their ability to predict direct observations that no one has ever seen before.

No, the age of the earth is figuratively stated, not implied.

[quote]Nature can only imply things to us because it cannot speak otherwise.
[/quote]Nature doesn’t speak. You’re conflating implications with inferences.

Science isn’t about statements, explicit or otherwise. That’s your other misrepresentation of science as hearsay.

58

@Mike_Gantt,

Your refutation about personal witness would have some persuasive power if it even had a chance of turning to a fictional human witnessing the 6 days of Creation.

59

And geneaologies tell us that human text writers frequently present historically unrepresentative and non-factual material.

60

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

The most important biblical reason to accept the scientific view is that the age of the earth is not the foundation of our faith, it never was. The earth looks old, so why not wonder if it was? Our faith is founded on Jesus, not specific interpretations of Genesis.

Genesis was written about 1700 BC, or earlier if one starts Moses’s sources. At this time, no one had ever written or conceived of “billion.” If Moses knew the true age, how would he have written a number that no one could conceive?

There is a parallel in the size of the universe. The observable universe is about 93 Billion Light Years, but may extend much farther. It is vast beyond comprehension, with galaxies, black holes, and dark matter. The Bible only talks about stars, the sun and the moon. There is no hint of the vastness of the universe in the account. Both the heaven and the earth are created, but most attention is given to earth. But even if Moses knew, how could he have written about it? No one at the time could even fathom the length of a single light year. 93 billion is just silly. How could he have put it into words.

We think the earth is about 4.8 billion years, and the universe is older. This is just a fraction of the age that the universe is large. If there is no hint of the vastness of the universe in Genesis, I’m certainly less concerned there is not a clear sign of its age.

That being said, I think Genesis is ambiguous. God was wise in it with this ambiguity. He made a universe beyond the comprehension of those who first read Genesis. The vastness of the universe declares His power. However large the universe is, God is greater still. The age of the universe amplifies His title, the Ancient of Days. The older it is, the more we understand His ancient nature.

He was beyond their comprehension in Genesis, as the universe was beyond their comprehension now. We can write down numbers like 93 Billion light years, but this beyond our comprehension too. Both the size and age of the universe declare a truly ancient God of the greatest power.

This is another Biblical reason to affirm a old earth. The Ancient of Days would make an ancient earth. 10,000 years is conceivable. That world does not declare an Ancient. Billions of years does. The Creator of all is the Ancient of Days.

Yes these verses are of days. But we also know that a day is a 1000 years, and a 1000 years is a day to God. When he created the heavens and the earth, with whose days did he use? Our days or his? How long are the days of the Ancient of Days? They are longer than ours.

I could go on. There are good textual, historical and theological reasons to question a young earth. At the very least, it is debatable. Scripture does not teach billions of years, but it certainly makes sense of it. We follow Jesus. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the Ancient One.

1 Like