Age of the Earth, Part 1: A Young-Earth Bible?

In Tim Chaffney and Jason Lisle's book, Old-Earth Creationsm on Trial, the authors say,

"Actually, the debate between old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists is not really about the age of the earth and universe. Primarily, it comes down to biblical authority. Did God really do what He said He did in Genesis 1? If it took Him billions of years to create everything, then He could have easily and clearly stated that in His Word."

The intended implications are quite clear.  Chaffney and Lisle are making two significant claims:

1.  The Bible clearly teaches a recent creation.
2.  Those who disagree with the first point are challenging biblical authority.

According to these authors and other voices within the YEC movement, the case of young-earth vs. old-earth is closed.  I whole-heartedly agree, although I am deeply convinced that the verdict falls in favor of an ancient earth.  In my next series of posts, I will outline why I believe the earth is undoubtedly old, and why Christians can and should embrace an old-earth view without reservation.

Many discussions of this issue center on the Genesis text.  There is much that has been said about the genre of that ancient Hebrew tome, the nature of the word yom, the events of the first 6 days, etc.  In this post, I will not attempt to demonstrate why I am convinced that the Bible does not insist upon a young earth, nor am I the most qualified person to do so. Thankfully, it has already been done thoroughly and effectively by many respected (and conservative) Bible scholars.  Very simply, the question I would like to raise is, "Does the Bible really clearly teach a young earth?"

YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG) have been incredibly successful in convincing millions of Christians that the Bible clearly teaches a YEC perspective. The core of their argument centers around the assertion that the only faithful interpretation of Genesis 1 is that the days of the creation week are 24-hour days. On the AiG website, Terry Mortenson writes:

"The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days."

While the YEC movement has gained the support of many laypeople within the church, their well-funded websites and museums haven't influenced nearly as high of a percentage of respected Bible teachers. If you have a study Bible at home that you picked up from your local Christian bookstore, it will likely say something like this in the notes under Genesis 1 (the following is taken from my ESV study Bible, a highly recommended Bible):

By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine.

Reading in that same Bible in a section called "Genesis and Science", the authors state:

Faithful interpreters have offered arguments for taking the creation week of Genesis 1 as a regular week with ordinary days; or as God's workdays, analogous to a human workweek; or as a literary device to portray the creation week as if it were a workweek, but without concern for temporal sequence. None of these views requires denying that Genesis 1 is historical.

Additionally, in nearly every well-known systematic theology book used by the Evangelical church, you will see this same apprehension in insisting that Genesis 1 has one clear interpretation in regard to the nature of the creation week. Even if they have a strong opinion, virtually all old testament scholars will tell you that the first chapter of Genesis is obscure and unique.

The International Council on Inerrancy, a conservative council committed to the affirmation of biblical inerrancy, addressed the issue of the age of the earth and universe at its second summit. After a long deliberation and the presentation of several papers, all of the theologians and Old Testament scholars present concluded that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not 24-hour creation days.

Anyone who is convinced that the Bible conclusively teaches one clear perspective of earth history would be wise to heed the words of St. Augustine, who said in reference to Genesis:

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in the Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

The preceding commentary should suffice to prove that we should approach the debate concerning the nature of the creation week with a certain amount of openness and flexibility.  But, I'll push things further by listing a collection of Christian leaders who have either advocated an old-earth interpretation of the Bible, or who agree that the Bible can allow for an old-earth interpretation (a portion of this list was pulled from a very insightful blog on similar issues, GeoChristian):

• C.S. Lewis (philosopher/apologist)
• Francis Schaeffer (philosopher/apologist)
• Charles Spurgeon (19th century preacher)
• William Lane Craig (philosopher/apologist)
• Chuck Colson (author)
• Lee Strobel (apologist/author)
• J.P. Moreland (philospher/apologist)
• Norman Geisler (philosopher/apologist)
• Gleason Archer (professor of OT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
• Walter Kaiser (professor of OT at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)
• Charles Hodge (theologian, mid-1800s)
• B.B. Warfield (theologian in late 1800s, strong defender of Biblical Christianity)
• C.I. Scofield (Dallas Theological Seminary, Scofield Study Bible author)
• St. Augustine (church father/theologian)
• B.B. Warfield (professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921)
• James Orr (Baptist minister, lecturer and author)
• John Piper (Reformed pastor and author)
• Timothy Keller (Reformed pastor and author)
• William Jennings Bryan (famous opponent of Darwinsim)
• James Montgomery Boice (Reformed thelogian)

It would be a difficult task for any YEC to convince me that the people on this list were liberal compromisers who don't take the Word of God seriously.  Quite to the contrary, this is a list of leaders who, despite their divergent opinions on a number of secondary issues of faith, are/were thoroughly committed to a Biblical worldview.

Why is this all so important? Because someone who insists that the Bible clearly teaches a YEC perspective needs to understand that they are in disharmony with a vast number of men and women who have devoted their lives to the study and teaching of Scripture. It is one thing to have a strong opinion or a well-reasoned position on the matter. It is entirely different to insist that your interpretation is the ONLY possible interpretation.

At this point, the YEC may say that I'm committing the subjectivist fallacy known as appeal to majority. First of all, it's worth noting that YEC's often accuse opponents of appealling to the majority, because they often find themselves opposed to the majority. However, in this case, I'm using the majority to point out the complexity of an issue. If the vast majority considers something to be unclear, then it is unclear by definition.

Note that I am not necessarily taking issue with the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1. Rather, I am opposed to their ruthless insistence that their interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation. Their unwillingness to consider that the creation account might possess a little mystery and obscurity frightens me.

If you're a church-going Christian, you've likely been to a Bible study or heard a sermon where the teacher was teaching through a difficult passage of Scripture. How would it strike you if that teacher got to a passage and said something along these lines?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a difficult passage of Scripture. Historically, scholars have been divided on the correct interpretation of these verses. Bible-believing and Bible-loving men and women have come to different conclusions, but I am about to give you the only correct interpretation of this passage. The context is clear to me, and I am about to tell you exactly what the writer (and God) intended with these words.

Unless you have a high propensity to fall under the spell of cult-leaders, a few red flags would go up. You'd probably be more comfortable with the teacher saying something like "this is a difficult passage, and I do have an opinion, but there are many Christians with other opinions, too."

After considering what we've covered thus far, I would hope that most reasonable readers would agree that insisting  "the Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago" is unnecessary and misguided.  If you're interested in exploring this particular issue (the Biblical case for an old-earth or openness to an old-earth), the folks over at Reasons to Believe have put together an amazing collection of important theologians/philosophers/pastors/teachers/authors and their own words about the subject.  Check the page out here.  If you're willing to take the time to read through it, it should only affirm what I have been trying to communicate throughout this post.

The Bible does not definitively teach a time-table of earth history.  Insisting upon this requires unsubstantiated claims about Scripture at best and an abuse of Scripture at worst.  So, we must return to the assertion made by Chaffney and Lisle.  Is the age of the earth really a question of biblical authority?  Since the Bible does not speak about the age of the earth authoritatively, the answer is no.  In order to come to definitive conclusions about earth history, we must consult additional sources of truth.  

James