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

Hey man, thank you for providing clarity and everything. I totally feel where you’re coming from as I’ve just recently, since the beginning of the year, have given up the traditional view of creation in Genesis. It’s definitely been a journey. I remember first reading articles at Biologos and being shocked initially but they more I read and compared my views with what they were saying, it began to make sense to me. I’m still on this journey and of course has raised even more questions so I’m still working those things out.

With that being said, I’ll answer your questions in light of what helped me understand more. And as you said, my science-knowledge is sooooo limited so it definitely wasn’t the science that led me to look at Genesis differently. It was that I realized that my reading of Genesis 1-3 was wrong. It was my faithful commitment to read and interpret God’s word correctly, rather than science, that led me to this conclusion.

So, to your question of the biblical reasons to accept a super old earth, I would say there are none, explicitly at least. I say explicitly because knowing what we know about God in Scripture about how he’s faithful, takes his time, gets things done “consequentially”, etc, and even personally of life being a journey and we “evolve” in our lives and are shaped by life and God’s Spirit and his word, the process of the evolution of life as a whole doesn’t surprise me if that was God’s method of creation. But if you’re looking for a narrative or passage to say that “through billions of years God created the heavens and earth”, there is none. So brother, I think where you’re getting hung up at is your interpretation. You begin with the premise that Genesis 1-2 is telling us, literally-scientifically, how the universe came to be. And because you begin with that premise, you have the obstacles that you have. And understandably, that’s the view that I had always known and read about and also, a plain reading will give you that understanding. So the question then is this: how am I reading the creation narrative wrong? So lets see instead of what the bible says, what it doesn’t say.

Biblical interpretation. What’s the proper way to interpret the Bible? Four questions that are important in correct interpretation. What is the genre? What is the context? What is the author intending to say? How would the audience have understood it? Think of when Jesus is talking about the prodigal son. Did that father and son exist? No. But a plain reading will give that impression. But understanding that it’s a parable, we look at the passage differently. Not analogizing the two, but just showing why genre and stuff is important. With that being said, lets go to Genesis 1. The very first sentence, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now what does that mean? Our traditional view, we’ve always read it synonomously as "God created the entire universe. But is that what it says literally? And were the ancient readers who read this understand it as that? Not at all. A quick context glance, you’ll see that the author is referring to the “sky” (as in the blue thing when you look up) and the “land” (what we walk on instead of the globe/planet. (Also, those hebrew words mean sky and land. Also, there was no concept of the vast outer space, billions of galaxies and planets so there were no ancient hebrew words to describe such.) It helped to understand too that the first verse is a summary of the following verses. Something like, “in the beg, God created the heavens (sky) and the earth (land), this is how he did it…The earth was formless and empty…”. Apart from that the Hebrew words is referring to the sky that we look up and see and the land that we walk on, the context gives us clues. In 1:10, God calls the dry land “earth” and in 1:8 he calls the “expanse” sky (where the birds fly). So by taking this as a scientific literal account, we would have to conclude that it only tells us God created the sky above and the ground we walk on. Adding to that, this “expanse” refers to a hard, domelike structure. The NRSV translates the word as dome and I think that’s the proper translation. The ancients believed the sky was a dome (it does look like it) that held back water (I mean it is blue) and had windows or “floodgates” (literally "lattice-windows; Gen 7:11) that would let that water fall down (oh that explains rain). And this makes sense of the separation of “waters above” from “waters below” in 1:6-7.

So looking at that, I concluded ohhhh ok I’ve been imposing my own modern, scientific views on to this and have been making it say something that it doesn’t say. And this realization can be scary, because now a person can say (like a friend told me), well isn’t the bible wrong? The sky isn’t a dome holding back an ocean, but yet it says that God created one. And if Genesis is meaning to give a literal, science-factual account of how creation came to be, then that conclusion, of the bible being wrong, would be correct. But it’s not that the bible is wrong, it’s that our interpretation is wrong. So what is it saying then?

Another question I forgot to add to the questions of correct interpretation is “why is the author writing”. In the NT, it’s often easy to see why the author is writing. Luke wants to let Theophilus know what’s going on, Paul is having issues with the Corinthian church, etc. But why is the author of Genesis writing? It’s not easily derived from the text but compared to other ancient writings at the time, it seems like that Genesis is a polemic to other ancient creation accounts at that time. Genesis is theological and it tells about the God of Israel, and the people of Israel. And that theme runs through the whole bible. Some quick examples, instead of the world coming into shape via a pantheon of spiteful, war-stricken gods, Genesis declares that one sovereign God made all there is. Instead of the sky, sun, moon, and sea being gods needing to be served by humans, Genesis declares that these are only creations by the one true God to serve human beings. And also notice that the author uses the words “greater light” and “lesser light” instead of the ancient hebrew words for sun and moon. Apparently to furthermore say that they aren’t gods. Instead of humans being created by the gods to be their slaves and do their duties, Genesis declares that Yahweh created human beings in his image, as his royal representatives who don’t provide god’s needs (he has none) but that one true God provides needs for humans.

Sorry to make this so long, but these few things and a lot more has helped me to see that my interpretation of the passage was wrong and that the author wasn’t revealing scientfic discoveries that wouldn’t be known until thousands of years later. But was rather using their own ancient, cultural understandings to tell about their god and themselves. And this is what the truth of the matter is, the theologicals rather than the scientific. So to answer your question, I would say there are no biblical passages to describe scientifically the age of the earth, old or young. Just like the bible doesn’t tell us about how to make a car, or why we have fingernails, the ancient inspired writers’ intention wasn’t that. It’s a story about Yahweh and his people. So the reason I’m open to evolutionary creation is because I’ve concluded what the bible ISN’T saying and I trust the people here at Biologos about the scientfic evidence of evolution. So it’s not even that you have to jump from 6 days, to evolution. Just continue with your conviction to want to interpret God’s word correctly. Hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions and want any clarification to anything I’ve said. Blessings

3 Likes

What authors or books have been most helpful to you in your journey?

1 Like

Oh, and how did you get past the two obstacles I identify in the OP at the top of this thread?

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your passion to follow Christ and to follow the Scriptures. I appreciate that you’re working hard on understanding the Scriptures. However, I don’t think you realize how deeply your modern, materialistic, Western worldview is driving your interpretation of Genesis 1-3…soo much so that you don’t even realize that it’s happening. That’s the way worldview works. I speak as someone who had my world turned upside down when I moved to West Africa for a few years.

This is definitely not how the ancient Hebrew readers/listeners would have perceived the meaning of Gen. 1:2, and Walton presents a carefully researched textual analysis of the Hebrew to support an alternative (“functional”) understanding of the verse. Do you recall the evidence that Walton presents, or would you like me to summarize it for you in a subsequent post?

Grace and peace,
Chris

1 Like

I would love to read your summary.

1 Like

Tim Mackie of The Bible Project (my fav organization) really opened my eyes when I listened to one of his lectures. You can listen to it here → http://www.timmackie.com/science-and-faith/
He’s one of my favorite teachers. I started this thing called Year of Biblical Literacy where you read through the bible in a year and Reality SF had done lectures from a previous year that they had went through it. It was there where I listened to John Walton’s lecture about origins. I didn’t initially take it to heart at first because I already had “answers” from like AIG & CMI and other YEC orgs. But then I bought the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible. That helped me understand things even more, like the importance of “cultural backgrounds”. So glad I bought that. It was then through John Walton where I was introduced to Biologos. I had heard of them before, but only in a negative light from AIG & CMI. So I went to their site and started reading their articles about Genesis. And me, I’m a big hermenuetics nerd so when I started seeing how I was misinterpreting it and not being consistent in correct interpretation, I started to get those “oooohhhhhhh” moments lol. So Tim Mackie and the Bible Project have been EXTREMELY helpful. I love that organization. They had a podcast too on iTunes that you can listen to and they have one on the beginning of Genesis. John Walton, the Biologos articles, the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, all have been a good help. I know John Walton has been a recurring name but he’s a good teacher. I have his books but I haven’t finished reading them. Check out the cultural backgrounds bible and the link I posted and The Bible Project’s podcast. Let me know how you fare with those!

3 Likes

Not saying this sarcastically, but did you read my post? lol Those realizations is how I overcame those. No problem clarifying though.

I realized that the author’s intention wasn’t to give a literal-scientific account. He was writing an account of the beginnings of the Israelite people in his own ancient cultural understanding. It has all the clues of “ancient creation myth”. But don’t get afraid of that word myth. I don’t mean myth as in fairytale. But more so a cultural understanding. For example, so instead of the gods going to battle and creating the world from the blood of the slain gods and humans to do their chores and feed them (like other ancient mesopatamian cultures claimed), Yahweh alone calls their world into existence and creates humans in his image, not as slaves, but as his royal representatives. That hebrew word translated image refers to idols. So the author is saying God made us as his “living statues”. So God breathing (does God have lungs?) into the man’s nostrils, is not necessarily literal. But the truth of it is that God cares about his creation, especially with human beings. Take a look at this article for further clarification → http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that’s-not-the-point
It may sound weird at first to say that it’s not describing a literal historical event God creating in 6 days, but it’s only natural because of the plain reading (it looks like that’s what it’s saying) and from our already established premises. But as you continue to read and understand the points, I think it’ll click on you.

And just a quick point about the “progressive creation”, would you say that God created you and I? Yes right? I would say he created every person alive. But would that mean God still creates even to today? Did God create Hawaii? Yes but we know it was formed and still gets added on from volcanic activity.

1 Like

Hello Mike,

2 counter points:

  1. The Hebrew שָׁבַת֙ (sabat) is translated in most bible versions and Hebrew interlinears as, “rested”, not ceased. I know this because I did research on it after a YEC representative in a multi-view apologetics round-table interrupted my question and told that the word meant ceased. But he was wrong. And it only makes sense that it means ,“rested” since the word is where we get the Sabbath from, the, “day of rest”.

  2. The full verse of Exodus 31:17 reads (NIV):

       It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six 
       days the Lord  made the heavens and the earth, and on the 
       seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
    

Everyone translates the Hebrew וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ (wayinapas) as, “refreshed”. So, even if you don’t accept that sabat means, “rest”, you have to concede that Exodus 31:17 makes the claim that God was refreshed after He, “ceased” his work. But, that only makes sense if God rested, so that passage seems to make clear that God in fact, “rested” on the 7th day. In any case, God can’t be refreshed from His work since He’s spirit and not human.

So, you can see why so many of us don’t see the need to take the 6-day as history.

But, I will give you this. You’ve correctly determined that it’s impossible to concord Genesis 1 since the bible insists that we look at the 6 days as 24-hour period, “normal” days. So, to be honest and consistent in interpreting the creation narratives, we really only have 2 choices. Either God is telling us exactly how the physical creation happened or he used stories that made sense to the original audience that weren’t attempting to be historic.

4 Likes

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

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

@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.

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.

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.

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