Austin Robbins<\/b><\/p>\n
Biblical scholars today are divided into two camps by their views on the age of the earth: those who believe the earth to be relatively young, and those holding to a very long history of the earth.<\/p>\n
Definitions<\/b><\/p>\n
Young Earth View<\/b><\/p>\n
This theory accepts the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 at face value. It views the age of the earth as implied by Genesis to be about 7000 to 9000 years, perhaps less but not more. It repudiates the whole time scale of evolutionary theories.<\/p>\n
Old Earth Views<\/b><\/p>\n
Day\/Age Theory<\/b><\/p>\n
This theory sees each day of the creation account as an epoch of undetermined length. It expands the creation week to include enough time for the vast geologic ages of evolution to have occurred. (It is sometimes called the Concordist theory since it tries to see a concord between the stages of evolution and the days of Genesis 1, albeit with much overlapping of those days.)<\/p>\n
Gap Theory<\/b><\/p>\n
This theory postulates an undetermined period of time (a gap) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or possibly before Genesis 1:1. During this gap Satan is supposed to have fallen (along with his angels) thus causing God to judge the previously created earth producing conditions of chaos and emptiness (waste and void). Afterward God recommenced His work and the rest of the creation narrative explains this. It is also known as the Ruin\/Reconstruction Theory.<\/p>\n
Advocates of Old Earth Views<\/b><\/p>\n
Those who hold these views do so from a sincere desire to defend the inerrancy and integrity of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Their motives are not to tear down the Bible but to harmonize it with what they the age of the universe.<\/p>\n
Popularization of old earth views was greatly enhanced by the publication of the late Bernard Ramm\u2019s book The Christian View of Science and Scripture in<\/i> 1954. It has since been used almost continuously as a text in many Christian colleges and universities. No wonder many Christians are confused about the issue, especially since the New Scofield Reference Bible,<\/i> the Pilgrim Study Bible, Haley s Bible Handbook and Unger\u2019s Bible Handbook<\/i> all uphold one or both of these old earth views. (The Ryrie Study Bible<\/i> and the MacArthur Study Bible,<\/i> however, oppose all old earth theories.)<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 58<\/p>\n
And God said, \u201cLet there be light,\u201d and there was light (Gn 1:3).<\/b><\/p>\n
A Brief History<\/b><\/p>\n
The idea of a double revelation goes at least as far back as Galileo (1564\u20131642). He said, \u201cScripture is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes.\u201d Sir Francis Bacon (1561\u20131626), a devout Christian, held that God gave man two revelations, the Book of Scripture and the book of nature.<\/p>\n
Newton\u2019s successor at Cambridge University, William Whiston (1667\u20131752) believed that Ussher\u2019s chronology was essentially correct, but added 6 years, thinking each day of creation was actually a year. This, I think, was perhaps the beginning of the day\/age theory.<\/p>\n
However, liberal Biblical criticism gained momentum throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The divine inspiration and authority of the Bible was increasingly challenged, if not out rightly denied. During this time, while geology as a science was in its infancy, various views concerning fossils ranged from jokes of nature, deceptions of Satan, to creative works of God. Interestingly, earlier Christians almost universally thought fossils products of the Flood.<\/p>\n
After 1800, in response to the growing popularity of geologic uniformitarian and later catastrophic views of the earth\u2019s origins and history, the day\/age and gap theories were significantly refined. The gap theory was enormously popularized in the footnotes to Genesis 1 in the Scofield Reference Bible<\/i> of 1909 and 1917. In 1970. Arthur Custance published a careful defense of the gap theory titled, Without Form and Void.<\/i> The day\/age view became more popular as evolutionists published more complete scenarios of the creatures. Certain similarities were seen between the days of Genesis 1 and the so-called eras and epochs of evolution. Much material was published purporting to equate the days of Genesis 1 with the evolutionary scenario of gradual development of higher life forms.<\/p>\n
Implications of these Views<\/b><\/p>\n
The basic issues involved arc twofold: the Scientific issue concerns itself with time, while the Scriptural issue concerns itself with interpretation.<\/p>\n
The Issue of Time<\/b><\/p>\n
This is not a direct confrontation between evolution and creation. Everyone who holds cither of these old earth views is a committed creationist. The only serious issue from a scientific standpoint is: how long ago did God create? Of course, evolutionary philosophy requires a very long time but creation could have occurred recently or long ago.<\/p>\n
The Bible gives no exact time for events prior to Genesis 12. But it does give a basic framework which, on face value, sets the time of creation at a maximum of 7000 to 9000 years ago. On the other hand, the gap and day\/age theories accept a very old age for the earth, in the range of 4.5 to 5 billion years. Is the time frame of evolution, i.e., 4 or 5 billion years, an established scientific fact? Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, it is not! There is a serious discrepancy between measured observations of science and the assumptions and speculations generated by an unproven hypothesis. One time-honored dictum of science I learned almost a half century ago states, \u201cif you can measure it, then you might learn something about it.\u201d Mere assumptions and reasoning based upon them cannot carry as much weight as measurements.<\/p>\n
We have been told that since distant galaxies are around 15 billion light years away, that is how long they have been in existence. Few people realize that the distance and the time span rest solely upon the cosmologic model one employs. Sir Bernard Lovell of the Jodrell Bank Observatory in England, when asked a question about quasars, replied,<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 59<\/p>\n
Then God said, \u201cLet the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them…\u201d There was evening and there was morning, a third day (Gn 1:11, 13, NASB).<\/b><\/p>\n
If you ask me how far away those objects are (and hence how old), then the answer is the extraordinary one that you cannot calculate the distance unless you know what cosmological model applies to the universe. The distance is so much on the Big Bang model, so much on the Steady State Theory, and it has another value if the constants in the cosmological equations are different and the universe is in a cyclical condition. (1971:205)<\/p>\n
One\u2019s estimate of the age of the universe is totally dependent on the cosmology to which one subscribes. It the Big Bang cosmology is an accurate representation of the universe, then it is about 15 billion years old. If the Big Bang view is incorrect, this time scale also is wrong. Yet fatal flaws are present in Big Bang model. But almost no one questions the time scale based solidly on it!<\/p>\n
Evolutionists have continually told us that the evidence demands a vast age for the earth, sun and stars, yet such is not the case! Dr. John Eddy of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, a respected astrophysicist specializing in the study of the sun, made the following statement. He said, at a symposium titled Time in Full Measure,<\/i> held at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, April 13, 1978,<\/p>\n
There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the sun is 4.5 X 10(9) years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher\u2019s value for the age of the earth and the sun. I don\u2019t think we have mush in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that. (Lubenow 1992:205)<\/p>\n
Dr. Eddy also stated that solar physics looks to paleontology for data on solar chronology. So evolutionary philosophy, based on a specific interpretation of fossils, controls even the ages assigned to celestial bodies! This illustrates the fact that in cosmology the time scale comes from the model, not from independent measurements.<\/p>\n
Paleontology, the study of fossils, is also completely subservient to the philosophy of evolution. Polystrate fossils, those which extend through various layers of rock, falsify the time scale assigned to those layers. In the Pioneer coal tunnel at Ashland, PA (which I have visited with some of my grandchildren) stands a fossilized tree trunk, upright, extending through at least 6 successive rock layers. It is impossible for a tree to remain upright for millions of years while coal is slowly forming around it. Rather, those layers were deposited rapidly enough so that the tree did not rot during that time. One can chart polystrate fossils of various kinds, of both plants and animals throughout the world. They overlap each other in the geologic column. In one place they may run through several layers of Cambrian strata, some extending into the Ordovician. Elsewhere they cross the Ordovician into the Silurian or Devonian. They are especially prolific in the Mesozoic strata. One can trace the polystrates through almost the entire geologic column. This is observational data, not speculative theory, and argues strongly for a rapid-deposition of all the layers.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 60<\/p>\n
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night… God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth (Gn 1:16\u201317. NASB).<\/b><\/p>\n
Index fossils of widely differing ages are sometimes found in the same rock! Men and dinosaurs are not supposed to have met. Yet there is abundant observational evidence to the contrary. Human footprints, morphologically identical to those left by living men, are found in rocks dated by evolutionary standards at 3.6 to 3.8 million years ago. The principal investigator of the shape of the prints, R.H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago, stated,<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo\u201d (Tuttle 1990:64).<\/p>\n
The evolutionary philosophy, with its time scale, forces an interpretation of facts contrary to what those facts demonstrate.<\/p>\n
Measurements, by triangulation from the base line of the earth\u2019s orbit around the sun, can yield distances out into space with a fair degree of accuracy up to about 300 light years. Beyond that, all estimates of distance (and time) are based on assumptions predicated by the Big Bang model. Dr. Eddy was very forthright and honest when he implied that all observational evidence is in general agreement with Bishop Ussher\u2019s chronology. Thus Sir Bernard Lovell was entirely correct in stating that our estimate of ago depends on our cosmological model. Thus it is foolishness to try to mix cosmologies, i.e., Biblical creation and evolutionary astronomy.<\/p>\n
So we conclude from a scientific standpoint there is no compelling reason to estimate the earth\u2019s age to be any greater than that implied by a face value reading of Scripture.<\/p>\n
The issue of Biblical Interpretation<\/b><\/p>\n
The measurement of time in the distant past, dealing with earth\u2019s earliest history, is important to Biblical accuracy. It impacts on the very basic question of the interpretation of God\u2019s Word. It has been shown that the day\/age theory and the gap theory originated in response to the ever increasing estimates of the age of the earth by secular scientists. Today the driving motivation for espousing these views is predicated on an acceptance of the time line postulated by evolutionary theory.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 61<\/p>\n
But what does an old earth concept do to Biblical interpretation? Let us compare Scripture with Scripture in an analysis of these views.<\/p>\n
Death before Adam?<\/b><\/p>\n
Both the day\/age and the gap theories require millions and millions of animals died prior to Adam\u2019s creation. But Romans 5:12 and 8:20\u201322 make it clear that there was no death before Adam. Some have tried to interpret Romans 5:12 as referring only to human death, not animal death. Yet Romans 8:20\u201322 renders such a view impossible since it refers to all creation. The word used by Paul (ktiseos<\/i>) can only mean the non-rational creation viewed collectively, animate and inanimate \u2014 equivalent to all nature. (Wuest: 137)<\/p>\n
Both old earth views require that millions of creatures lived and died before Adam had dominion over them. Yet Hebrews 2:5\u20138 states that God intended all things to be subject to Adam. In fact, the emphatic statement in verse 8, \u201cin putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to Him\u201d seems to be specifically directed to those who God knew would someday deny that man ever had dominion over all earth\u2019s creatures.<\/p>\n
These theories call into question God\u2019s definition of good and very good \u2014 Genesis 1:31. Is death \u2014 even the death of animals \u2014 ever to be considered good? The Bible calls death an enemy – the last enemy to be vanquished (1 Cor 15:26). Not only an enemy, death is an intruder which entered the world after Adam\u2019s fall (Rm 5:12).<\/p>\n
Six days?<\/b><\/p>\n
The gap theory is completely refuted by Exodus 20:11. God made the earth, the heavens, the sea and all that is in them in six days. There can be room for no gap at all! The gap theory, and to a lesser extent the day\/age theory, leaves us without any clue as to the original state of the earth. Supposed billions of years are omitted from Biblical history and we know nothing of the events of the original creation. In fact, 99.9% of earth\u2019s history becomes a blank if these theories are correct.<\/p>\n
The gap and day\/age theories assume that the flood of Noah\u2019s day was comparatively insignificant in its geologic effects since all the fossiliferous layers of the earth had been already laid down. But the only flood of which Jesus spoke was that of Noah (Mt. 24:37\u201339 and Lk 17:27). The flood of which Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:6 (KJV), \u201cthe world that then was being overflowed with water, perished,\u201d could only be Noah\u2019s, not some unknown original flood(s) prior to Adam since Peter clearly wrote of Noah in the same context (2 Peter 2:5).<\/p>\n
God made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth (Gn 1:16\u201317, NASB).<\/b><\/p>\n
Still, some of the common reasons used in support of the old earth theories are as follows:<\/p>\n
1. The word day is often used to mean an undetermined period of time, not a 24-hour day. It is so used even in the creation account (Gn 2:4). But the Hebrew word for day, yom<\/i>, when linked with a numerical adjective, is never used in Scripture to mean other than a normal 24-hour day (see Hansen 1998:35\u201334). In English, we also use the word \u201cday\u201d metaphorically, e.g. George Washington\u2019s day, but not when we state the number of day(s).<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 62<\/p>\n
2. The \u201cdays\u201d of Genesis 1 correspond to evolutionary stages, albeit with some overlaps. But these days are not in the right order for evolution. For instance, fruit trees were created on day three, complete with fruit. But the sun wasn\u2019t created until day four and insects not until day six. This could not be if each day were a long evolutionary epoch.<\/p>\n
3. The Hebrew verb in Genesis 1:2 is better translated became<\/i> rather than was.<\/i> Thus the earth became waste and void after the creation, a result of Satan\u2019s fall. But the word hayetha<\/i> must be translated was, not became. The wording would be wattehi-haarets<\/i> if it were to be translated became. But the text reads wa-haarets hayetha,<\/i> and the earth was.<\/p>\n
In support of this we see other passages where this phrase is used. Genesis 2:25: Adam and Eve were naked after their creation. Genesis 3:1: the serpent was craftier than other animals. Zechariah. 3:1\u20133; Joshua was clothed with filthy garments. Jonah 3:3: Nineveh was a great city when Jonah approached it.<\/p>\n
4. The phrase evening and morning used of days one through six is omitted in describing day seven. This indicates that day seven at least is a long time of rest.<\/p>\n
But the very phrase evening and morning serves to define the word day. Not just daylight hours (12), but a 24-hour cycle is meant. Also the omission of the phrase at day seven is not indicative of a long period of time. God often reveals to man what man cannot know or learn for himself. Adam could not know the specifics of each of the first six days, as he had not yet been created. But he certainly could observe for himself that day seven had an evening and a morning and thus was a 24- hour day by watching the sun set at the end of day six and see it rise and set on day seven.<\/p>\n
5. Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 state that to God a day is the same as a thousand years.<\/p>\n
But these passages do not say that a day is a thousand years. In God\u2019s sight, from an eternal perspective, a day is as a thousand years. If day in those verses were to be other than a normal 24 hours it would make nonsense of the passage, thus, a long period of time is to God as a thousand years.<\/p>\n
Then God said, \u201cLet the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens… Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind\u201d (Gn 1:20, 24; NASB).<\/b><\/p>\n
6. The waste and void of Genesis 1:2 refer to the results of the destruction God wrought upon Satan in judgment. See Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23. But these terms do not necessarily imply judgment. The Hebrew words tohu wa bohu,<\/i> waste and void, are used in the context of judgment in the Isaiah and Jeremiah passages, but in other passages they do not have such a connotation (Jb 26:7, 6:18; Dt. 32:10; Jb 12:28; Ps 107:40). The basic concept of these words is emptiness not judgment. Even in Isaiah 45:18, God stated He did not intend for the land to remain empty (see Zec 8:5 and Is 49:19\u201320). Emptiness can be either good or bad depending on what preceded it (Lk 8:35 and Mt 12:44).<\/p>\n
7. Darkness at day one is a symbol of evil. See Jude 13 and John 3:19.<\/p>\n
But darkness is not necessarily evil (Ps 104:19\u201324). In Genesis 1:18, both darkness and light are called good. In Genesis 1:2 and Psalm 139:12 darkness receives blessing!<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 63<\/p>\n
8. There is a distinction between the words for create (bara<\/i>) and make (asah<\/i>). Create, bara,<\/i> is to bring into existence, while make is to form something from already existing materials. But different words are used as synonyms for the same creative acts. For example: Form (yatsar<\/i>) 2:7; Swarm, teem (sharats<\/i>) 1:20; Bring forth, sprout (dawsha<\/i>) 1:11: Bring forth (thistles) (tsammakh<\/i>) 3:18; Bring forth, produce (yatsa<\/i>) 1:24; Appear (raah<\/i>) 1:9.<\/p>\n
Compare 1:21 (bara<\/i>) with 1:25 (asah<\/i>) and 1:24 (yalsa<\/i>) with 1:25 (asah<\/i>), also 1:27 (bara<\/i>) with 2:7 (yatsar<\/i>). It is obvious that the writer used synonyms wherever he could to vary the flow of the text. This is just as we do in English.<\/p>\n
The Problem of Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
A great chasm exists between man\u2019s picture of the early history of the universe and the historical account of the Bible. Man cannot reconcile a sinful fallen universe with the perfect one God saw at the end of day six. Scientific investigation of our world is an attempt to understand it as it now comprehend the fatally flawed nature of the universe. It neither understands sin nor its consequences. These can be known only from a study of the Word of God. Without a perspective of the Fall and of judgment in the Flood there can be no harmony between science and Scripture. It is not so much because man is finite, but because he is sinful that he fails to understand correctly even the book of nature. No longer holding his position as head of all creation (Heb 2:6\u20138a), even his comprehension of the world around him is flawed. Both the observer (man) and the object (natural world) are equally subject to vanity (Rom 8:20\u201321).<\/p>\n
Scripture is clear and unequivocal in its teaching of a recent creation in six normal days and a global catastrophic Flood as God\u2019s judgment on a sinful world. Additionally, that Flood so changed the face of the earth geologically that Peter could, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, say, with considerable understatement, \u201cBy these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed\u201d (2 Pt 3:6). Were the Flood of Noah\u2019s day any less catastrophic, the force of Peter\u2019s warning would be seriously diminished if not lost altogether.<\/p>\n
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men… Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming (2 Pi 3:7. 11\u201312).<\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/b><\/p>\n
Hansen, D. G.<\/b><\/p>\n
1998 A Study of the Hebrew word Yom in the Creation Narrative (Genesis 1,2). Bible and Spade,<\/i> 11.2:35\u201344.<\/p>\n
Lovell, Sir B.<\/b><\/p>\n
1971 Lecture at Schoolcraft College, Livonia, Michigan. Oct 12. Recorded by M.L. Lubenow, cited in Bones of Contention:<\/i> 201.<\/p>\n
Lubenow, M. L.<\/b><\/p>\n
1992 Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils<\/i>. Grand Rapids: Baker.<\/p>\n
Tuttle, R. H.<\/b><\/p>\n
1990 The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet. Natural History,<\/i> March: 64.<\/p>\n
Wuest, K. S.<\/b><\/p>\n
1980 Word Studies in the Greek New Testament<\/i>, 1:137. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 15:2 (Spring 2002) p. 64<\/p>\n
Bible And Spade 15:3 (Summer 2002)<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Austin Robbins Biblical scholars today are divided into two camps by their views on the age of the earth: those who believe the earth to be relatively young, and those holding to a very long history of the earth. Definitions Young Earth View This theory accepts the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 … Continue reading “A
\nQUESTION OF TIME:
\nOLD OR YOUNG EARTH?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15347","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}