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

@Mike_Gantt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mike_Gantt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, a line was crossed without much circumspection.

I hate using my phone but that is all I have at the moment. would you say the root of your problem is the conflict between the two histories? I would suggest you need to look into what was considered history in the ANE. The genologies are important not for calculating the age of the earth but for what they say about how history was viewed. If this form of history could be written in an inaccurate,to us, way perhaps that would indicate you should change the way you view history in the Bible.

Generally speaking, yes.

I view genealogies the way the Bible reads them - as having their greatest relevance in Messiah, to whom the promises came. He must be traced back to David, then to Jacob and Isaac and Abraham, then to Noah, and then to Adam and Eve for all the promises to be his.

I don’t understand what you mean by “inaccurate to us” unless you’re referring to gaps - which I’ve already said I can’t imagine amounting to a material number of years relevant to the question at hand.

Looking at this from a different angle, why would you adopt an interpretation of the Bible that is so easily shown to be false?

@Mike_Gantt

Calling the time honored field of Geology “history” - - instead of Science is something I never would have expected from you.

Inaccurate as in leaving out people. A modern version would be thrown out if it contained a large number of errors. Again I am not talking about ages. If the genealogy shows the relationships that was considered good enough. In terms of “history” what does this mean?

Are you asking why I would adopt an interpretation of the Bible which results in the earth being young - a proposition you believe can easily be shown to be false?

(Sorry to be so tedious with the parroting back but it is hard to tell sometimes exactly what someone is asking on boards like these.)

I don’t know enough about geology to call it anything except one of the sciences. My only point is that when and if one of the outputs of geology is an ancient history that contradicts the Bible, then my concern is with that ancient history.

Again, I don’t think you could reasonably assume enough left out people to come up with years to get you from thousands to billions.

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your question; I know it’s frustrating trying to do this from a phone. Hat’s off to you - I wouldn’t even attempt it.

Essentially, yes. A young Earth has been shown to be false by mountains of evidence that anyone can see for themselves. If, as you say, the Bible can only be interpreted as supporting a young Earth, then the Bible could not have been inspired by the Creator of this Universe because it gets everything wrong. That is the situation you are putting the Bible in, at least from my perspective.

Again not talking about ages. How does the Bible approach history when genealogies it considers as accurate are in fact not accurate?

An example?

(Copied from myself, from own blog)

Biblical genealogies are demonstrably not accurate chronologies. X begat (or “was the father of”) Y does not always imply a one-generation relationship between the two. This both solves and creates problems. And while it is virtually meaningless in terms of the old/young earth debate, it does mean that accountings of the time since Adam roamed the earth are bound to contain errors.

On example we see is in Christ’s genealogy in Matthew, where we read:

Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. (Matt. 1:8)

which one can compare with
11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, (1 Chron 3:11-12)

In this geneology (Azariah is the same person as Uzziah) we see that there are three generations missing from Matthew’s account, which makes Uzziah appear to be Joram’s son rather than his great-grandson. That is all fine and dandy considering Matthew’s purpose was to explain Christ’s Davidic (legal) bloodline. Nevertheless it calls into question the precision of Matthew’s concluding:

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the (10) deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the (11) deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. (Matt. 1:17)

I don’t know a resolution to this issue, although I don’t dwell on it very much.

For a more striking example, we read:

Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was officer over the treasures. (1 Chron. 26:24)

Shebuel is of the time of David, and yet Gershom is a true next-generation son of Moses (Ex. 2:22) . Thus there are 400+ years between Gershom and his “son” Shebuel.

It is also well known that if genealogies are also chronologies then there are a whole host of additional problems, such as Noah not dying until Abraham was in his fifties. No, it is clear that the bible uses genealogies as historic flows rather than generationally precise family trees.

3 Likes