Justin Taylor recently posted a video clip from the 2012 Ligonier Conference. The clip was a portion of a panel discussion on how Christians should understand the age of the earth.
The full discussion on this question, available on video here, starts at 42:09 on the video and lasts through 75:40 (the end). It is mostly R.C. Sproul Sr., Stephen Meyer (a Christian scientist and author who subscribes to Intelligent Design), and Del Tackett (known for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project), although Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul Jr. also make some brief comments.
I appreciated both R.C. Sproul Sr. and Stephen Meyer’s emphasis that this debate should be intramural and congenial. Good people can disagree on this issue and still mutually affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and stand against the materialistic drive of this age.
Taylor went on to quote from and point us to a report from the 2000 PCA report on the question of differing interpretations of the days of Creation. That report carefully defines terms, explains most of the various positions which aim to remain true to the text, and evaluates each view helpfully. A historical review of the position of the Church on the days of creation is also provided. The PCA concludes that this issue shouldn’t divide their church and aims to show that people holding to the various views can have unity in standing for Biblical supernaturalism when it comes to creation, and against a naturalistic worldview. I recommend you check out that paper.
In recent years, this debate has become more and more caustic. And some of the participants have moved farther and farther afield from the Bible’s account of creation. Peter Enns has gone so far as to deny the existence of Adam, and the historicity of the Exodus and much, much more! That being said, although a slippery slope does exist, the Church has always had varying positions on this issue. Holding to supernatural creation is more important than holding to a young earth or literal 24 hour days. There are many exegetical reasons offered against the young earth view, and some of them, in my mind, are convincing. But as Stephen Meyer points out in the panel’s discussion, the Church has to be careful not to get sidetracked into an intramural debate over the days of Creation instead of confronting head-on the new atheists denials of the existence of God and the Bible’s supernatural claims.
I expect my readers hold a variety of positions on this issue as well, so drop a comment and we can discuss this further. Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?
Hey Bob!
You mentioned “there are many exegetical reasons against the young earth view” that seem convincing. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit. I’m unaware of anything exegetically that would favor an old earth view over a young earth view.
Jake,
There are a variety of arguments stemming from the text that can be seen as more or less persuasive. Gen. 1:2 has long been a curious insertion between 1:1 and 1:3 and on the face of it implies that something was done prior to day 1. Also day 7 has no “and evening and morning were the seventh day” clause, which many point to the fact that day 7 is seen to be still continuing to this day (see Heb. 4).
Gen. 2:5-6 is difficult to square with a six literal day view. It implies God is using ordinary providential means to create life. Reasons are listed for why no plants are there yet (because of no water), this seems to ignore God’s special supernatural works in chapter 1. Also why would land be dry if all the globe had only recently (3 days ago) come out of being completely submerged?
Additionally, the fact that the sun was created on day 4 but days 1-3 are described as “days” (which are marked by the earth’s passage around the sun) and also plants require light. This has long been a difficult problem for six 24 hour days, one which Augustine recognized and many others in developing alternate views.
There are other exegetical arguments against common corrolaries to the six 24 hour view. Most 24 hour people claim that no death (plant or animal) came before the Fall. So how did animals eat on days 5 and 6 before the Fall then? And where did the skins come from that God clothed Adam and Eve with (skins would naturally imply, leather dried out over a course of several days to be wearable). We can imagine that animals at first were vegetarian and God miraculously changed their digestive tracts and teeth to be carnivorous, or that carnivorous fish just didn’t eat for a day and a half or more. We could also imagine that God miraculously prepared skins from freshly slain beasts to be wearable in minutes, but the text doesn’t state these things.
These are the sorts of things I mean by “exegetical”, but I could add to that discourse analysis work on Gen. 1 and 2, and also understanding the genre and poetic structure of the text – there are arguments for that understanding.
As it stands now, I’m still sorting through the different options and want to remain true to the text above all. I just don’t see the text as straightforward and the case for 24 hour days as “slam-dunk” of a case as I used to.
Hope that helps some, but I recommend everyone check out the paper I linked to which gets into many more particulars.
Additionally, you may want to reference this blog post from Justin Taylor that is presenting what the PCA report terms an “analogical day” view.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2007/07/24/origins/
He brings up additional exegetical arguments. Seeing Gen. 1:1 as a background statement. Seeing a distinction between “bara” in 1:1 with “asah” elsewhere in Gen. 1. And seeing “evening and morning” in that order being a clue in to “rest” being the main point. Rest from labors, and ultimately the Sabbath.
Bob,
It is not very important to me, honestly. I can see validity in both YE and OE arguments. I lean more towards OE now days. I must say though, it is not something I think about very often. lol Maybe I should.
It becomes a big deal when different groups and churches make it a big deal, and so that’s why some have to think about it more than others, I guess!
I would want to state one more thing, though, which is important to point out on this issue. Geologic evidence for the age of the earth did come into play in the development of some of these alternate views, but not necessarily evolution at all. Old earth evidence was being widely reported in the early 1800s, even, with evolution not coming into play until 1860 or so.
Hi Bob, good article and I just wanted to respond to the question you asked…
Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?.
To begin I’m a YECs myself and when I have shared the gospel with different people over the years I don’t normally bring up this subject.
However on a more than a few occasions the seeker has brought up the question of suffering and also suffering through evolution.
What I mean is this suffering which entails pain, disease, carnivory and death in the animal kingdom for millions of years was part of God’s “Very Good” Creation according to OECists that been either theistic evolution or the other views of OECism.
Although I do feel theistic evolution has some more serious problems both from a Scriptural standpoint and scientifically compared to other OEC views.
Now when this objection of suffering was brought up by the seeker or sceptic I felt I was able to give a good answer in explaining that God’s very good creation did not have this suffering in it, but pain and suffering came into the world as an intruder through the sin of Adam and indeed the whole of Creation is now groaning because of sin.
So although this area of OEC/YEC is not an essential doctrine for salvation, I do believe it’s important for different reasons and especially the one above.
In the fossil record which OECs believe predate the fall and subsequent curse we see evidence of disease e.g. cancerous tumours in the animal kingdom.
But I really believe that taking on the inference from all of Scripture with regards to the goodness of God this pre-cursed world with millions of years of suffering does not comport with the God of the Bible… that is the God of love, peace and goodness.
Primarily though I’m a YECs because a plain reading of Genesis 1 as well as other passages of the Bible which strongly indicate a relatively young Earth and Universe created in six ordinary days.
To finish, I would also like to say that some of my favourite Christian apologists and teachers are OECs and I value their work greatly, but I do feel that OECs are unintentionally bringing into question the character of God in the eyes of some.
I know OECists don’t see it this way, but there have been some seekers and sceptics that have brought up this issue of suffering and I’m sure they won’t be the last.
So “just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world…” well it can become very important when a seeker might grant that the world was created by God, but at the same time question the kind of God He is by creating a world of suffering from the beginning.
(Just before posting this I looked at your comment/response where you also spoke on plant death, well Genesis says that plants were to be food for both human and animal consumption… so obviously there was plant death before the fall and I don’t know if many YECs would actually say there was no plant death before the fall.. anyhow plants cannot feel pain or suffer, but animals can and do.)
God bless
Eddie
Great thoughts, Eddie. Thanks for jumping in. I know we have traditionally equated disease and death and all as stemming from the Fall, but I wonder sometimes how much definitively is stated (besides human death) as stemming from it. Creation groans and there is a curse on the earth. But what exactly does that entail? Could it not be groaning under the misdeeds and unjudged sins of men, rather than a groaning over pain and death and disease in animals? I’m not sure myself.
The question of suffering has many other angles too, and God’s creation of a perfect world only to take it away upon Adam’s Fall (which he foreknew and foreordained) presents other difficulties too.
Like I said, I’m still working my way through alternatives and I may very well end up more convinced of six 24 hour days than ever. Thanks again for commenting.
Thanks Bob,
and thanks again for the interesting article you wrote on this important subject… I’ll be keeping an eye on your web-site for more good articles to come.
Eddie
FYI: Bob, the excerpt of R.C. Sproul’s was published originally for a blog series that is running on the Ligonier Blog on Friday’s titled, “A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture.” The introduction was published last week and it will continue tomorrow.
Thanks, Nathan. I was hoping that maybe a smaller piece of video might be found with just Stephen Meyer’s comments to that question. Hopefully something like that is coming, although I did enjoy Sproul’s comments as well. Thanks for pointing that out.
The series is based on Sproul’s comments, so I doubt we’ll be pulling Meyer’s. You never know though. 🙂
I don’t have anything to add to the discussion, Bob, except to say that I’m glad to see it and appreciate the gracious spirit of everyone involved (at least up to this point!).
Bob,
I enjoy your blog, and I thought I’d respond to a few of your exegetical points.
1) You comment about the “curious insertion” between 1:1 and 1:3: this seems to simply be stating the condition of things prior to God speaking His first command – let there be light. There is certainly no Scriptural support to suggest a long period of time between versus 2 and 3, so to conclude that there was would be an argument from silence.
2) Day 7 has no “and evening and morning were the seventh day” clause, because God finished his creation on the 6th day. Each creation day has such a statement, but Day 7, God did not “work” in creation, so it would not make sense for there to be such a phrase for Day 7.
3) As for the sun not appearing until day 4, Scripture tells us that God placed the sun and stars in the sky for markers for signs, seasons, days and years. Days existed prior to the creation of the sun, and the sun simply serves as a marker to man – there was evening and morning on each of the 3 days in which no sun, moon or stars existed. Also, no scientific explanation would suggest that the earth, water, grass, etc. preceded the sun, so to try and reconcile this to science is pointless.
4) In Gen 1:29-30, God gives every plant for food – notice that animals are not given. It is not until after the fall – actually after the flood – that meat is given for food. Genesis 9:2-3 combined with the specific giving of plants in 1:29-30 seems to demonstrate that neither man nor beast ate meat prior to this. The skins that God clothed Adam and Eve with is symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice. From the very beginning, blood was shed to cover sin – we’re not told that God leathered the skins before clothing Adam and Eve, but we’re also not told how long a time passed between when they sinned and when He clothed them.
5) As for the structure of the text, it is Hebrew historical prose – not poetical structure. I have heard some try to suggest that the parallel order of events are poetic, but it is a straightforward account in the same historical style as most of the rest of Genesis.
I agree with you that Christians can and do differ on these views, but the main question I concern myself with is why do we feel the need for an old earth, when science has not, and cannot, prove an old earth. Historical science assumes no God, and that presupposition then leads to concluding the earth must be very old due to appearance. However, no one alive was there when the earth was created, and I have no doubt that the earth had the appearance of age – just like Adam had the appearance of a full grown man the moment that God formed him out of dust. If we presuppose a God who speaks things into existence, then an old earth is unnecessary.
Those are my thoughts. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share, and thanks again for your work on this site!
Stephen,
A few quick responses, and thanks for participating.
1) Gen. 1:2 separates 1:1 from 1:3 so that there was creating work that happened prior to Day 1. At least that is how the text reads most plainly. God created the earth and heavens, the earth was formless, then Day 1, God made light (or formed light). That is curious when it comes to thinking the six days are all of God’s creating work, if so, why the evidence of stuff prior to day 1?
2) That is a possible interpretation, but it seems from ANE parallels and biblical theology (also Heb. 4), that after God created, he rested. He entered his rest and the rest continues to this day and so in essence, the seventh day continues. Again I’m not being hard and fast on any of these, just cumulatively there is enough to make me pause before firmly adopting a six day / 24 hour view.
3) The text says the sun didn’t exist prior to day 4. Science would say the earth didn’t exist before the sun did, and plants, seas, and atmosphere, and everything doesn’t work in science without a sun and moon. So there is a difficulty and it has been long acknowledged, since the days of Augustine and earlier.
4) Gen. 1:30 is a good argument about carniverous animals, but in Gen. 9, it is clear that only men are now being permitted to eat animals. Obviously animals were eating other animals already. I am still open on this question so that is a good point, thanks for bringing it up.
5) I’m sure there is debate on this point, but I’m not really arguing for a Framework view. Still the order and parallels between the two sets of three are striking, if not poetic.
The argument in your paragraph following number 5 says too much. Some could (and did) speak that way about science and the earth rotating the sun. “Science cannot and will not prove that the earth rotates around the sun, because the Bible clearly teaches the sun rises, the earth’s foundation is fixed, and the earth has pillars and corners, the sun is told to ‘stand still,’ etc.” But obviously science has proved that, and we now see that those features of the text were metaphorical and poetic. I’m not saying science has proven the age, but the case is quite convincing — especially when it comes to starlight and time.
Thanks again for jumping in. And for reading my blog from time to time.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
Thanks for your reply. A few comments on your post:
1. I read verses 1-5 as all occurring on Day 1 – the very first thing God does is create the heavens and the earth, and immediately after he created them – verse 2 – the earth was void, there was darkness, etc. Then God said “let there be light”…
2. God giving the 4th commandment in Exodus 20 seems to preclude the possibility that the 7th day is some indeterminate period of time.
3. Everything works without a sun and moon for 3 days – besides, perhaps God’s light from Day 1 served the purpose of the sun prior to Day 4 – God’s light will provide all the light we’ll have in the new heaven and new earth.
4. Did you mean that Gen 1:30 is a good argument AGAINST carnivorous animals – the verse specifically gives green plants to all with the breath of life? We cannot see that God killed an animal after the fall to provide skins to Adam and Eve, but Scripture makes clear that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22). God covered their shame through the shedding of blood. As both man and animals were given green plants for food, there is no reason to assume that death occurred prior to the fall.
5. God is orderly. In 1st Cor 14:40, Paul instructs that in the church everything is to be done “decently and in order”. This command reflects God’s nature and character.
As to the comments about past views that have been proven by science:
I agree that one can stretch the meaning of Scripture with interpretation – thus some people say space travel is wrong, because man was given dominion over the earth – not the heavens. See the following article…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/05/11/feedback-space-travel?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
However, in the case of a 6 day creation, one is not reading into the text when he interprets that on the first day light was created, and on the fourth day, the sun was created. Further, there is no scientific evidence that this is not the case. I want to be careful not to have egg on my face with my beliefs, but it is currently, and will always be, impossible to prove a big bang or any other scientific hypothesis, because no one was there to observe or record it. Science today does not change whether a gigantic cosmic explosion (which must have had eternal matter and energy) created the universe as we know it or whether God spoke it into existence with a word. However, to try and marry these two concepts is folly.
Have a great weekend!
Stephen,
Yes I was saying that you had a good point on number 4 (Gen. 1:30). A point worth mulling over more.
Thanks again for the interchange. This is an important point exegetically, but Christians can agree to charitably disagree on this point.
Blessings,
BOb
Hey Bob!
took me a while to reply (my parents are in town), but thanks for the info! I mulled it over a bit, and I remain unconvinced of an old earth. It doesn’t seem like a young earth view needs to be contrived from clear exegetical evidence that demands an old earth view. A generous (towards the old earth view) examination of some of the evidence might suggest the text is somewhat ambiguous about literal days in some of the verses, but this does not mean the earth was not created in six literal days, just that every single verse does not demand it. In this case, the verses that are the clearest should be the ones that determine the outcome of our exegesis. Old earth proponents seem to allow science to interpret the passages that are ambiguous, and then (in the case of some) attempt to fit their conclusions into the passages that are clear (like literal 24-hour days).
Michael Kruger has an excellent article on Genesis 2:5 that may help with that issue (I had to think through that one), the sun is hardly a problem because they are markers. Solar patterns are not required to have literal days, but they are created for us to be able to determine what those days are. Those are just a couple of things I would add (and reiterate) to what has already been said.
Thanks, Jake. Good discussion. Looking forward to seeing you all soon.
http://www.John316.com – The Gap Theory
I hold to the Old Earth view as well. IFB fundamentalists like David Cloud like to slander OECs as if we believed in evolution, which is a blatant lie. I hear that Ken Ham’s science is not that good, but I don’t know.
The problem is YECs who want to insist their view is the only acceptable one.
We must all reject theistic evolution however.
We definitely cannot view the Book of Genesis as “poetry” like Erik DiVietro suggested we do in a comment at Fundamentally Changed. The Book of Genesis is not poetry. Both OECs and YECs take the Sacred Text literally.