A Baker’s Dozen Indicators from the Bible for an Old Earth

Assertions:

1. The seventh day began after the creation of man and has not ended yet.
2. This indicates that the author of Genesis intended the word “yôm” in Genesis 1 to refer to indefinite periods longer than 24 hours.

Assumptions:

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God

b) We can use other passages, even from the New Testament to further understand passages in Genesis.

Discussion:

The seventh day, the sabbath day of creation does not follow the same pattern as the others in scripture.  It is unique. As many have noted, the author now changes the formula used in describing the end of the period.   The others end this way:  ^“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the __ day”.   For this period, Genesis records: “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it, God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” Genesis 2:3 (ESV)

The day is not closed. The writer of Hebrews recognized this in Hebrews 4:3-13 and draws on the continuation of that rest to show that believers enter into God’s rest. We strive to enter God’s rest, joining him in this seventh day. 

It is not that God is not working in some senses all of the time.  The universe would cease to exist if He did. Jesus reflected when He was accused of working on the sabbath: “And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.  But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” ”John 5:16-17 (ESV)

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary reports,

“Yôm can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Gen. 2:3). In this verse, “day” refers to the entire period of God’s resting from creating this universe. This “day” began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ.”

It is interesting that the more detailed account of creation presented in Genesis 2 does not refer to the seventh day, again consistent with a longer period that continues. Moses also used “sabbath” as a longer period, such as in Leviticus 25:2-6 where the land had its sabbath of 7 years and 2 Chronicles 36:21 where it lasted 70 years.  The duration of the period was not the point of the sabbath or the use of the word day in creation.  

Some object, claiming that the reference to Sabbath in Exodus demands that creations days were solar days. Hebrew scholar, Gleason Archer wrote, “By no means does this [Exodus 20:9–11] demonstrate that twenty-four-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days,’ any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.”

God revealed His acts in creation to us in seven periods as an example for the sabbaths that would be part of the Law for both the human workweek and for the land.  The pattern is no less valid because the days were God’s days rather than human days. The seventh day continues and God will someday bring an eighth day with new heavens and a new Earth.

Assertions:

1. In the most common Young Earth Creationists (YEC) interpretations, solar days (those with the sun available as the source of light) begin on day 4, while day and night began with day 1.
2. If days 1 through 3 were not tied to solar days, there is no demand for “day” represent 24-hour periods in this chapter.

Assumptions:

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God

b) God created with order and planning.

Discussion:

We say that a day is 24 hours long and now understand that this is based on one rotation of the earth.  The light that powers our planet is from our sun, giving us days and nights. In the first chapter of Genesis, the first 3 days occur before the sun was mentioned.  How would that work?  If the sun was created on day 4, then how could there be light?  What was the physical source of this light? In a figurative sense, God is the light: “And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.”  Revelation 22:5 (ESV) God is the ultimate cause for the physical light as well.  However, if you want to take Him as the source of the light in a more literal and physical sense in Genesis, there are concerns. Was God dark prior to day 1? Morning and evening without a sun would tell us that God fixed his position on one side of the earth and turned himself on day one.

Consider the words of early Christian, Origen (c. 184 – c.253 AD): “Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky?”  Origen, De Principiis

Obviously, this has been a puzzle for a long time.

Gregg Davidson in “Friend of Science, Friend of Faith” described some of the consequences here:

“The conundrum only increases with the realization of what light is. Light is not a static object like paint on a canvas. Light is generated by photons streaming outward from an energy source. Consider what this means for the creation of light with a three-day lag before creation of the sun. To get evenings and mornings, we need light to come from one direction toward the earth. This leaves two possibilities. For one, God could have continuously created photons for three days emanating from a point where the sun would eventually reside, though this departs from a plain-sense reading of a singular creation event of light on Day 1. Alternatively, to complete the creation of light in one day, God could have spread out photons along a path behind the point where the sun would eventually be placed. This means a beam of photons distributed along a pathway away from earth, through the eventual position of the sun 93 million miles away, and out an additional 50 billion miles.  In this scenario, the sun would have been created just as the last of the trailing photons reached the location where the sun was to be placed. 

Stars would have an even more complicated history, since all of them are much greater than 50 billion miles away from us. A focused beam from each star would need to be aligned in front of where the star would eventually be placed.  All of this is certainly within the power of an almighty creator, though it seems contrary to the nature of a nondeceptive God who brings order to his creation rather than confusion.”

The scenario of creating light in transit and the dropping the sun in later, makes God seem like a bad planner.  He created the light and then thought, “Oh yeah, I need a source”.  That does not sound like the God of the Bible. A simpler understanding would be to consider the creation account as written from the perspective of the earth’s surface, as given in verse 2. The light originated from the sun which was not yet visible through primordial clouds. The days are God days, not solar days, God divided periods.  The Holy Spirit provided the author the words that would convey the truth needed for the early Israelites and Christians through all of the ages. He did not need for Moses to understand modern science, but it is not surprising that when read this way, the account reconciles with our understanding of Earth’s history.

Assertions:

1. Many Bible translations insert the word “the” before the days in Genesis 1.
2. “The” was not added in the original text in order to emphasize the special nature of this text.
3. More word-for-word translations help to understand the days of Genesis were not normal solar days.

Assumptions:

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God

b) Words must be interpreted carefully, recognizing that often more than one literal meaning option exists.

Discussion:

Creation in Genesis 1 is revealed over 7 days.  Unfortunately, most of us here can only read English translations of Genesis. The translators have had to make many decisions to bring the language of ~3500 years ago to us.  In many translations, they have added the word “the” in front of day in Genesis 1.  Apparently, the thought was that this would make these days read better to the English reader.  Some newer translations such as the NASB and CSB do not insert the “the”.  Removing this one word does not prove that the days are long periods of time, but it is one more indication that these were not just single solar days.  It opens up other possibilities.

I am far from a Hebrew scholar, so I will quote from Gleason Archer “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”: 

“The second major aspect of Genesis 1 is the revelation that God brought forth His creation in an orderly and systematic manner. There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” the second day,” etc. are in error. The Hebrew says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5).  Hebrew expresses “the first day” by layyim hai’sôn, but this text says simply yôm ‘ehad (“day one”). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyôm hasseni (“the second day”) but yôm seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun) was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus, they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”

Some have claimed that an ordinal number before yôm proves that the days are 24-hour days.  George Benthien (2012) reports the following:

 There is no rule in Hebrew grammar that requires this interpretation. 

All of the 358 cases mentioned (where a nominal precedes yôm) refer to human activity where the 24-hour meaning would be natural. Genesis 1 and Hosea 6:2 refer to God’s activity. (Benthien 2012)

He also notes that the Hebrews had no other name for “a finite period of time of unspecified duration.” The Bible does not have another list of periods of time that are numbered. There is no different formula or usage that the writer of Genesis would have used if he had meant ages rather than twenty-four-hour periods.  Hosea 6:1-2 (ESV) reads “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.”  Here the numbers are associated day, used in a figurative sense, not a literal 24-hour day.  The “day of the Lord” is usually figurative in the prophets just as the last days can in literal terms be a long time.

There are actually more options that relate to the numbering of the days here. The Jewish commentator, Umberto Cassuto (1883–1951) did not even consider the Genesis 1 numbers as ordinals:

“The use here of the cardinal instead of the ordinal number, as for the other days, is to be explained, with Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses son of Nahman], as follows: “First implies precedence over another in number or grading, when both are in existence.” (Cassuto 1944, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One)

What is the significance of a second day vs. the second day?  Henry Lee Poe explains the significance.

“The presence or absence of the definite article with the ordinal numeral and the noun day makes an enormous difference in meaning. If I relate my life and how I came to Union University, I might say,

• One day I was born.
• A second day I started preaching.
• A third day I started being married to Mary Anne Whitten.
• A fourth day I started being a father to Rebecca and then to Mary Ellen.
• A fifth day I started living in Minnesota.
• The sixth day I started working at Union.
• The seventh day I die.

This narrative is true, and it captures the significant moments that began on particular days. The activity or state that begins on a particular day had not occurred previously, and it continues on into the future. So why does this narrative of my life use a definitive article for day six? The sixth day is the focus of activity in which I am now engaged. (Poe 2014)

Together with the other issues that I am presenting, this shows that it is reasonable to conclude that Moses did not have 24-hour solar days in mind.

Assertions:

1. Genesis 1 – 2:3 was written in a style beyond normal prose.
2. This ordering makes it far more difficult to substitute other words or phrases.
3. This gives reason to consider words such as yôm as using meanings other than that based on the most common usage.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God.

b) We can use other passages, even from the New Testament to further understand passages in Genesis.

Discussion:

Many people from YEC to atheists claim that if the author had meant long periods of time during creation “week”, he would have written Genesis 1 very differently. Some ask for a bit more of a scientific description. There are always dangers in trying to second guess why an author chose particular words, or why they included or didn’t include particular information. That is especially true for a text written 3500 years ago in a language with far fewer words than our own.

One opinion concerning Genesis 1: “the text is plain Hebrew historical narrative, with all the same markers as any other narrative OT passage”.  Is that the case?  Is Genesis 1 written as a basic historical narrative?  It is not Hebrew poetry, but even taken as prose, it is beyond the normal prose as this quote from Gordon Wenham (1987) reflects

Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament. It invites comparison with the psalms that praise God’s work in creation (e.g., 8, 136, 148) or with passages such as Prov. 8:22-31 or Job 38 that reflect on the mystery of God’s creativity. It is indeed a great hymn, setting out majestically the omnipotence of the creator, but it There seems to be no real basis for taking the Genesis account as anything but some form of prose narrative. Even taken as prose, it is beyond the normal prose … an elevated prose.  It surpasses these other passages in the scope and comprehensiveness of vision. In that it is elevated prose, not pure poetry, it seems unlikely that it was used as a song of praise as the psalms were. Rather, in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeeding narratives. (Wenham 1987)

The text in Genesis 1 is perhaps the most tightly constructed non-poetic passage written in the Bible.  Does a basic historical narrative have this type of structural order?  Again, drawing on Wenham, the overall structure is ordered this way: 

Within this framework, the wording is highly organized, as Wenham wrote:

“The correspondence of the first paragraph, 1:1-2, with 2:1-3 is underlined by the number of Hebrew words in both being multiples of 7. 1:1 consists of 7 words, 1:2 of 14 (7 x 2) words, 2:1-3 of 35 (7 x 5) words. The number seven dominates this opening chapter in a strange way, not only in the number of words in a particular section but in the number of times a specific word or phrase recurs. For example, “God” is mentioned 35 times, “earth” 21 times, “heaven/firmament” 21 times, while the phrases “and it was so” and “God saw that it was good” occur 7 times.”

Words were chosen with great care. Changing a word here or there would have caused quite a change and possibly broken the structure. As noted on Indicator 4, the Hebrew had no other word for “a finite period of time of unspecified duration.” Perhaps there were other phrases or ways to express this concept, but not with one word. Adding phrases would have destroyed the elegant order of the account.  Some suggest that “olam” could be used, but that carries the idea of forever and that would not have worked. Qedem is proposed, but this word suggests: east or ancient or earliest time and would hardly have been a better fit.  Another obvious reason is that by revealing creation over seven periods, this became an analogy for man’s workweek.  Using any other word would have lost that vital link.

The order and structure of Genesis 1 alone does not prove that the days were long periods, but it makes it clear that we should be very careful in assuming the days correspond to solar days.  John Collins called the genre of this passage, “exalted prose narrative”. Wenham described it as “elevated prose”.  It is a carefully crafted historical narrative. We must treat it accordingly – both as historical, but including literary features derived from its careful construction. Its simplicity and elegance make it relevant and meaningful for a child or an ancient people, but continues to present its truth today with deeper levels of meaning. It is not surprising that we find scientific correspondence in new ways thousands of years later.

Assertions:

1. A simple direct option for reading Genesis 1 makes creation take place over 6 solar days.

2. Simple, direct interpretations are often not the best or correct interpretation of scriptural passages.
3. The 6-solar-day option may be plain and simple but that alone cannot make it correct.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is inerrant Word of God

b) Further study, including study from extrabiblical material can help us understand the Bible.

c) Words are sometimes used figuratively in the Bible.

Discussion:

There is no debate that one simple direct option for interpreting the days of Genesis 1 is that of seven 24-hour days. Should we assume that the simple direct option is always the best interpretation?  A simple and direct reading of the historical narrative in Genesis 3:1 leads many non-Christians to believe that Genesis has talking animals that try to lead people astray. This interpretation is entirely consistent with the YEC insistence that the plain and direct reading must be the correct interpretation of Genesis 1. Most Bible scholars agree that the serpent was Satan taking a disguise to beguile these people that God placed in this special place. This is an interpretation that involves bringing information from outside of Genesis to bear on the question.  One would be hard pressed to find the Hebrew word for serpent referring to Satan anywhere in the O.T. with the possible exception of an allegorical interpretation of Isaiah 65:25. Revelation 20:2 uses the Greek word for serpent to refer to Satan, but it does involve interpretation to link the two serpent usages. Even reaching to Revelation is not that uniquely interpretable. Satan can be referred to as a serpent. Does that really prove that Moses writing 1500 years earlier was referring to Satan??

Another historical narrative example comes from Genesis 2:16–17: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:16–17). A simple, literal interpretation of this verse would indicate that on the twenty-four-hour day that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they should have died. The NIV translation reads “for when you eat of it you will surely die” but both Wenham and Collins use the word day just as the KJV and ESV do (Wenham 1987; Collins 2006). There are various opinions from Christian commentators on how to interpret this verse, but none would argue that the simple, obvious reading is the correct one. Many interpret that the death referred to was spiritual death and that Adam and Eve died spiritually immediately when they chose to disobey God. That is a very reasonable interpretation, but it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the author of Genesis used the word death in that sense anywhere else. It would even be difficult to demonstrate that use for the word death anywhere in the Old Testament. Another possible interpretation would be that Adam and Eve did literally physically die on the day that they sinned. However, the “day” was an indefinite period of time that began when they chose to reject God’s way. It is clear that the word yôm can and is sometimes used to mean a period longer than twenty-four hours.

Another easy example where obvious readings, even in historical narratives, are incorrect comes from the gospels. When you read any of them separately, they seem to be clearly telling the story of Jesus in chronological order.  Yet when we look at them together and try to harmonize them into a single timeline, issues come out.  It becomes clear that parts are thematically arranged or simply positioned to fit the points that the writer wanted to make.  If we place on the books the constraints that we might on a modern biographer, they fail, but if we use the writing methods of the first century, they are entirely acceptable.  Imposing our expectations on ancient writings is dangerous.

These examples show that Christian’s often agree that the obvious reading does not give a valid interpretation. It is reasonable that God provides additional treasures of truth from detailed interpretation.  This can include bringing in information from other sources, such as nature.  Why can we not bring in knowledge from outside the Bible to help bring additional light into our understanding of the word?  We do this often in the New Testament.  We understand that the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Herod’s temple took place in 70 AD based on extrabiblical material.  We now find evidence that supports the destruction of Solomon’s temple in 586 BC.  We learn more about the meaning of words.  We learn about the gods that the other nations worshipped and that helps to understand why these nations had to face God’s judgement. 

Scripture vs. scripture is vital, but it does not answer every question. For instance, the details of how to harmonize the gospels are not entirely clear. The plain and natural meaning that is easily read regarding the chronology is simply not true in some cases. Of course, that does not detract from them as inerrant to Christians who are willing to recognize their thematic arrangement. Sometimes, we should be humble enough to recognize that God has not given us enough information in the Bible to uniquely interpret some passages, at least in terms of what took place historically (i.e., Genesis 6:1-4). Obviously, the original recipients had information that we don’t.

One obvious interpretation in Genesis 1 is that creation week lasted 7 human days, 168 hours. This simple direct reading certainly should be considered, but being simple and direct does not make it correct given the different meanings possible for yôm, translated as day. 

The Bible includes much figurative language.  Every Bible scholar recognizes this.  How about Genesis 1?

“A person may interpret “there were evening and morning” as a figurative expression to convey a period of time more than 24 hours. That does not indicate unbelief in the historical truthfulness of Genesis but a belief that the language of Genesis at that point is figurative. (Vestal, 1989)

Evening and morning are also used figuratively for longer periods in the Bible (Zech 14:6-7, Ps 65:8, Ps 90:6, Eccl 11:6, Jer 6:4). In Genesis 1, they could figuratively refer to the early part of the creation period and the last part of the creation period. I think they are simply a literary tool used to transition between the periods. The highly elevated style the text uses made this work beautifully to link the passage together with exactly the correct number of words.

If the days were longer periods of time, would that invalidate Exodus 20:11? Absolutely not. Figurative examples are common in the Bible. God’s description of creation in seven periods provides a great example as an analogy for man’s workweek. Such logic would be a pretty weak reason to disbelieve the many disparate lines of scientific datasets that point to longer periods of time. Nor do millions of years make science disprove the Bible. Longer periods do not reduce the need for a creator or that this creator is the God of the Bible!

We need to consider all of the available evidence and use inductive reasoning to determine what is the best answer.  We assemble all of the clues, and with God’s guidance we can recognize that some possible answers fail.  The best answers should explain all of the evidence both from the Bible and data from nature. 

Assertions:

1. Moses expressly tells us that God’s view of time is different than ours (Psalms 90:4)
2. Ancient people had no real way to express numbers in billions, such as would be required to quantitatively express modern estimates for the age of the universe.
3. The days of Genesis were God-divided periods of time that represent God-days, not human days.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God

Discussion:

If the days of Genesis 1 are long God-divided periods of time, that would mean that yôm represents in this passage, literal periods of time of real physical lengths. One could also refer to them figuratively as “God days”.  This would in effect make them similes, where God’s days are like our days in that both are periods of time. It would recognize that God’s view of time is different than ours.

Is there precedent for this in the Bible? We are told in Isaiah 55: 8-9, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

This truth is also expressed poetically in Psalms 90:

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.         Psalm 90:4 (ESV)

This is particularly relevant because the author of this Psalm was Moses, the same author as Genesis.  Moses recognized that God views time differently than we do.  Moses chose to express this using yôm.  God’s “days” and God’s timing are often different than ours.  Peter referenced Moses here:

“But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:8-9 (ESV)

Peter was not giving a formula to interpret creation in Genesis 1, but he clearly gives a caution against interpreting God’s timing on our terms. We can apply that to creation.

How might Moses have expressed the timing of a creation event almost 14 billion years ago?  I have not found any indications of such large numbers in any ancient language. The Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for 1 million is great.  It is basically one of their gods throwing up his hands.  I think of it as his being amazed, but today, he could be awarding a touchdown from American football.  Such numbers were not common.  I have not seen any indication that ancient cultures ever used numbers in the billions.  When God communicated large numbers to the people, he used similes such as in His promise to Abraham here: “I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.“ Genesis 22:17 (ESV)

Had Moses used such expressions, it would have destroyed the elevated prose that he in fact used, lost the linkage to the Israelite workweek and probably helped the early readers very little.

Assertions:

1. Assyria and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as recognized today, were used by Moses to geographically locate the Garden of Eden.
2. The sedimentary rock below the rivers could not have been deposited by Noah’s flood.
3. If deposited before the flood, then the rocks reflect time that does not fit the young Earth timeline.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is inerrant.

b) The plain reading of the geographical names mentioned in Genesis 2 are valid and some can be clearly tied to locations of today in the Mesopotamian valley.

c) The current rivers flow above sedimentary rocks that are miles thick.

Discussion:

The location of the Garden of Eden has been argued for millennia.  No credible final answer is available. Genesis does present clues, but once again, Moses and his immediate intended readers apparently had information that is not available to us.  The geographic names probably were familiar to those readers, but most are uncertain today. Mark Moore has an interesting discussion of this in his book, “Early Genesis, The Revealed Cosmology”. The description in Genesis 2:8-14 gives some information. We learn that the garden was in “the east”.  From the perspective of the children of Israel, the general ancient Mesopotamia region was referred to. The text refers to a “land of Havilah” but we don’t know where that was.  It refers to the land of Cush, generally considered modern Ethiopia through most of scripture, though other options are possible.  It names four rivers.  Two of these (Pishon and Gihon) cannot be confirmed with anything approaching high certainty, despite many proposals.

Two of the rivers are recognizable.  As John Sailhamer (1990) writes in his Genesis commentary, “Two of the rivers mentioned in association with the garden can be identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris”.  These rivers flowed through one of Earth’s “Cradles of Civilization”, dating back at least to the Ubaid culture (c5900 – 4300 BC) (Wikipedia).  The nation of Assyria is named (Gen 2:14) and its ancient location is firm. It seems fitting that the Garden of Eden was located in relation to these rivers and a nation with a long history with Israel.

Once we recognize that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers existed in the days of Adam and Eve and the garden, this has implications for the timing and the origin of the sedimentary rocks in that area. The Mesopotamian Plain across which the rivers flowed did not exist until relatively recently in terms of geologic periods, regardless of how long the periods were. One cannot claim that rivers flowing above 4 miles of flood deposits were there for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. (Pittman, et al, 2004).  Rocks in the Mesopotamian Basin, beneath the Tigris and Euphrates rivers include sandstones, limestones, volcanics and evaporites that were deposited in very different settings and orientations than the rivers. (Al-Hadidy, 2017) The rivers placement was controlled by the Zagros Mountains that grew as the Arabian plate collided with Asia (Figure 1).

Catastrophic plate tectonics advocates believe that plate motions, such as are shown in the figure, took place at meters per second during Noah’s flood, despite the fact that current rates verified by GPS monitors match the geologic timing from radiometric dating.  If one ignores these known rivers in the account, the Garden of Eden could have been located anywhere.  YEC author, Tim Clarey in “Carved in Stone” wrote “Based on our research, the likely locations for the Garden are in present-day Canada, Brazil, West Africa, Asia, or even Greenland, depending on which direction was eastward of the place referenced in Genesis 2:8.”

Figure 2.  Map based on reconstruction of the plate motion that has brought the Arabian and African plates against Eurasia. This resulted in large scale compression and the uplift that formed the Zagros Mountains.  (Hessami et al, 2006)

If one accepts a young earth with flood geology and some form of plate tectonics, then Dr Clarey is right, but if the words in the text are meaningful, then that freedom is not there.  If one tries to deal with this issue in a YEC model, what options exist?  Henry Morris wrote:

“This means in turn, that the names which seem to be postdiluvian (Ethiopia, Assyria, Tigris and Euphrates) were originally antediluvian names.  The names were remembered by the survivors of the Flood and then given to people or places in the postdiluvian world, in memory of those earlier names of which they were somehow reminded later.” (Morris, 1976)

Locations can be named after older locations such as Athens, Texas vs. the older version in Greece.  One would expect that Moses would have included comments to clarify, but we don’t see any indications that he was aware of any differentiations from the modern rivers. The plain reading as recognized through history is to identify Assyria, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as within the Mesopotamian valley.

If the rivers were in fact equivalent to the modern rivers, then all of the fossiliferous sediments, apparently deposited by normal geologic processes would have been laid down before God placed Adam in the garden.  The Genesis account of the Garden of Eden is set in a place with a long history long before Adam entered the scene.

Assertions:

1. Biblical interpretation by most evangelical scholars concludes that Satan is a fallen angel who rebelled against God.
2. Satan was created before man and rebelled before man’s creation.
3. This is easy to place in an OE timeline but difficult in a YE timeline.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God.

b) We can use other passages, even from the New Testament to further understand passages in Genesis.

Discussion:

Consistent with observations given in Indicator 6, Satan enters the account in the form of a serpent in Genesis 3. We are not told how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to this encounter, but given that apparently no children were on the scene, it was probably not very long.  Though the verses are sometimes interpreted differently, the Bible gives a picture of Satan as being an angelic being who was cast out of heaven to earth for his rebellion.  (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Revelation 12). In terms of Earth’s time, when did this occur?  We are not told in concrete terms. In Luke 10:18, Jesus said that “I saw Satan fall from heaven” but He did not choose to tell us when.  This could have been before Genesis 3, but we don’t know for sure.  In any case, he certainly was in rebellion early in human terms.  Look carefully in Ezekiel 28.

“You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.” Ezekiel 28:13-15 (ESV)

We see this being that we interpret to be Satan created on a day.  Days are part of our universe.  We read of jewels being prepared.  We see him in Eden, the garden of God.  This sounds like Satan acted in our universe before Adam and Eve were resident.

Could this be squeezed into a YEC timeline? Perhaps though awkwardly, but it certainly fits very easily in an OEC interpretation. It has been speculated that He saw Adam and Eve as creatures, that he considered less than himself and was jealous of the dominion that they were given. This would place Satan’s fall within a short period after Adam was created.  Scripture does not really confirm this.  If Satan and his angels are part of our realm, our universe, then their creation and fall would be accounted for easily in an ancient universe. They could be part of our universe, though having a spiritual existence that is sharply different than our current bodies.  The rebellion could have happened sometime before Adam was created.  Perhaps one purpose for mankind was to demonstrate that a created being could choose to love God, though the price for this was high.

Assertions:

1. The genealogical records through the Bible were not given for the purpose of dating the events of creation.
2. Inherent ambiguity in names and numbers serve to highlight that the Biblical records should not be used to date Adam’s creation or the creation of the universe. Wikipedia quotes, conservative theologian B. B. Warfield “On The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race“, as saying “it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables”.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God.

b) The Bible often does not give us complete information in terms that we would expect from modern historical records.

c) We do not have original autographs of any Biblical records and that is particularly true of the Torah.

Discussion:

Over and over, YEC have explained to me that the Bible proves that creation takes place 6000 years ago.  Of course, the Bible never tells us when the Earth was created.  An OEC is not rejecting a scriptural age.  The inference that the Earth was created approximately 4000 BC is based on direct calculations based on three sources:

1. Events known from archaeology such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC
2. A few key verses that provide time intervals before the archaeologically dated events. For example, Exodus 12:40 and I Kings 6:1 provide a way to estimate the time of the Patriarchs to the building of Solomon’s temple.
3. Time intervals based on the various genealogical records, particularly in Genesis.
4. Interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 as 24-hour solar days.

Data from 1 and 2 are very useful for dating Biblical events.  Many scholars, including conservative evangelical experts suggest that the next two are not valid for this dating game and do not pose any problems for OEC views.  I don’t know if you have ever tried to use a hammer as screwdriver, but it is tough. Sometimes using a tool for something it is not designed for can be disastrous.  I suggest that the Biblical genealogies were not designed to use to date creation and predictably give wrong answers if applied for that purpose.

The genealogical portions of scripture are not typically the most riveting parts. They are not typically where we draw memory verses from.  There are however real and important purposes for them.  These include:

1. They show a genealogical connection through the Old and New Testament from Adam to Abraham to Jesus.
2. They provided the Jews a clear understanding of who they were and where they fit into their national and spiritual heritage.
3. They were commonly used in legal matters such as taxation, property distribution and even job choices.
4. They showed relationships of the Hebrews to the surrounding nations, like Edom and Moab.
5. They serve to connect and transition between the key stories within the text

The determination of the date of creation was not a purpose in Biblical times. Notice that passages such as Exodus 12:40, and I Kings 6:1 take the genealogies back to Moses or Abraham. These dates were more significant to the Biblical narrative.

Scholars have recognized variations in the Biblical genealogies for a long time. William Henry Green studied biblical genealogies in great detail, and in 1892, he concluded this:

“On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.” (Green 1892)

Genealogies in the Bible are given differently for different purposes.  John Millam’s article, “The Genesis Genealogies”(2010) provides a particularly clear work that gives examples of “telescoping”, the intentional shortening of genealogical lists for various purposes. This Biblical tendency makes them useless for dating creation.

Joshua Swamidas in his book, “The Genealogical Adam and Eve” also stresses that, even if one were to accept the YEC timeline for Adam, that is all that it would give you.  It would not tell you the date of creation.  That would require the additional step of interpretation to demonstrate that the days of Genesis 1 must be 24-hour periods.  As Swamidas points out, Moses would not have been concerned with DNA or genetic origins.

Is it reasonable to date Adam back to earlier periods such as 40,000 – 100,000 years ago? Scripturally, this would be an appeal to gaps in the genealogies. Both Whitcomb and Morris (1961) and John MacArthur (2001) put the outer limit of gaps in the Biblical genealogies at 10,000 years. If you add just 10,000 years to either the period before the flood or after, all the scientific problems remain essentially the same. Even if one were to be a bit bolder with the gaps and allow that the earth were 100,000 years old, one still has to resolve just where to put the extra time and most scientific issues would not change. However, if one recognizes that genealogies can be telescoped and that the early information could have been revealed to Moses or an earlier source, longer gaps after Adam’s creation would be quite conceivable.

The inherent uncertainties in the Genesis genealogies mean that the age of the Earth is simply not constrained by them.

Additional Considerations:

If one considers the age of the Earth to be determined by the Biblical genealogies, then how well do we know the ages given in the Genesis text?  Two lines of evidence for the text are the Masoretic text, on which English translations are based, and the Septuagint, the Jewish translation of the O.T., completed in translated in mid-3rd century BC.  The Masoretic text was finalized 7th and 10th centuries AD, making the Septuagint (LXX) derived from earlier texts, though we don’t know in any detail what they used.  IN many cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided strong support for the accuracy of the OT texts, but unfortunately the scraps of Genesis preserved do not include the key sections and thus are not helpful.

Does this matter? I made a spreadsheet, Table 1 shown below, based on the Genesis genealogies from the ESV, which is based on the Masoretic text. I copied it and filled in the info from the LXX available online.  There are definitely some interesting differences.  First, we will look at from Adam to the flood. Interestingly, the dates of the flood are different by 586 years. This results from the fact that 1. Adam, Seth, Enos, Kenan (Cainan), Maleleel and Enoch each waited 100 more years in the Septuagint to have the child who carried on the lineage. 2. Methuselah (Mathusala) had Lamech when he was 20 years younger and 3. Lamech waited 6 years more to have Noah (Noe). The LXX dates mean that Methuselah died 14 years after the flood! That is a problem.

The dates from Noah to Abraham also vary quite a bit.  It has long been recognized that the cultural clues and Biblical text help us date Abraham, though dates for his birth still range from ~2000 to 2167 BC as shown below.  It is interesting the LXX even adds a generation along the line (Kainan). As you see, the Septuagint pushes the creation of Adam back 1366 years.  That is insignificant in terms of resolving the scientific data, but does raise questions.

What does this tell us? Technically the LXX has to be considered the earlier version, as the Torah was translated in mid-3rd century BC, while the Masoretic text was finalized 7th and 10th centuries AD. Certainly, the Apostle Paul treated the LXX as authoritative. That gives options:

1. The Masoretic text is to be preferred because it gives numbers that we like.
2. The Masoretic text recognized problems in the ages they received, and they adjusted them.
3. The LXX gives the better numbers but they were never meant to be taken as exhaustively valid. Perhaps they were representative people and ages meant to tie the Israelites, the people of promise to Adam.

It does show just one of the dangers in taking the ages from the genealogies as complete for chronological clocks. The genealogical data show very clearly that Adam and Abraham were part of a genealogical line that ties Adam’s sin with God’s decision to enter into space/time to provide redemption.  They were not meant to provide a date for when creation occurred.

Table 1:  Dating of genealogies based on Masoretic and Septuagint (LXX).  LXX text from here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf

Assertions:

1. The creation of forms of life in Genesis 1 show God preparing and letting the earth bring forth life. This fits well in a “deep time” timeframe.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God.

b) God is not limited by deadlines or our time

Discussion:

On days 3, 5 and 6, Genesis 1 record that God caused the Earth to bring forth life in many exciting forms.  Many imagine this similar to modern time-lapse photography, where a film compresses long periods of time into a few seconds. God certainly had the ability to do this but He is never rushed.  He was not bound by any artificial deadline to make sure the plants were up and mature before sunset.  He was not limited by a timeline that forced him to get the animals finished quickly so that Adam could hurriedly name them.

The “Young’s Literal Translation” translates Genesis 1:11-12 as follows:

And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed is in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:’ and it is so.   And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good;

As I wrote in another post: “Verses 11 and 12 tell of the creation of land plants. I do not think the text is really telling us much about what type of plants these were or what processes or mechanisms were used in their creation. The verses probably describe the creation of early forms that would lead to the more advanced forms, thus represent the period when the processes began.”  The picture is of God causing a process to begin.  He set the stage, designed the process and caused it to work.  Did God use “evolution”, meaning natural selection and genetic mutation?  Certainly, at times.  Genesis 1 does not tell us processes or secondary causes.

Similarly in Genesis 1:20-21 (YLT)

And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.’  And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that it is good.

God commands the waters to teem with creatures and for the air to have flying creatures, but he also “prepareth” sea creatures.  Could He have prepared instantly in terms of our time?  Certainly, but was He short of time?

And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:’ and it is so.  And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that it is good. Genesis 1:24-25 (YLT)

The text shows clearly that God is the primary cause for each form of life, but fits well with a designer who through various processes, lets the Earth bring forth life over what are, in human terms, vast periods of time.

Options for putting this in geologic time are here:  Creation: Days 1 to 4  and Creation: Days 5 to 7

How does “evolution” relate?? See here:  Evolution ??

Assertions:

1. Daniel gave us the “Ancient of Days” as one of the names of God.
2. The view of the Age of the Earth in billions of years is appropriate for such a God.
3. The YEC view makes the universe ~3400 years old in Daniel’s day, a far lesser view.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God.

b) God’s majesty is reflected in His age.

Discussion:

When does something become “ancient”?  When my sons were teenagers, they declared me ancient.  Now that they are older than I was then, they see it differently. Unlike many people today, those in Biblical times often regarded those of great age with great respect. (i.e. Gen 47:8-10). One reason for listing the great ages of the godly line of Seth was to show that they were special. Daniel gave as one of the names of God: the “Ancient of Days” (Daniel 7:12 and 21). The name is consistent with God’s eternal character as is also reflected by His existence since truly ancient times.  Ancient is not a term for outside of time.  That would be El-Olam, God of Eternity.

In human terms, from a YEC perspective, when God created Adam, time had existed for 5 days. When Adam died, God was 5 days older than Adam, in terms of the age of the universe. If Daniel was written in ~580 BC, then Methuselah at 969 years old was almost a third of the age of God. This view sort of makes the “Ancient of Days” underwhelming.

This is a qualitative indicator and I recognize that “ancient” is not specifically measurable. Even so, the Ancient of Days is much more significant in a universe that is 14 billion years old. There is grandeur in this that is just not there in recent models. A creation that unfolds over billions of years in billions of galaxies is an awesome creation. This is fitting and requires the God of the Bible.

Gary Chapman’s book: The Five Love Languages explains that for many people, quality time is their major way of expressing love. In creating the universe and the Earth over billions of years, once again, God has demonstrated His love in this language, in a way far beyond what we deserve. This does not mean that man was God’s only reason for creating the universe. He was perhaps not even His main reason.  We do see the importance of man to God, both in the Bible and in the care that science shows that God has used to bring man into existence. It seems clear that one purpose which God had in mind as He engineered our position in time and space was so we would one day learn of His majesty and wonder. He has given us the ability to develop the technologies to discover the galaxies. He positioned our planet in a solar system that circles a star located in one of the few places in our galaxy from which we can actually see other galaxies. The Ancient of Days is an amazing name.

Assertions:

1. The data from nature are not consistent with a creation 6-10,000 years ago or with deposition from a global flood a few thousand years ago.
2. Nature is consistent its creator.
3. God is not deceptive in his ways.
4. The earth is not 6-10,000 years old nor was any significant part of the geologic record the result of a global flood.

Assumptions: 

a) Genesis is the inerrant Word of God.

b) God is a God of Truth

Discussion:

The Bible consistently declares that God is holy and true.  Any view of creation should be faithful to that character.  It is not just about being able to cobble together explanations to explain away findings either in the Bible or in nature.

God’s character.. There is no lying or deception in God; God is True.  “So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.” Hebrews 6:18 (ESV)

Creation reveals its Creator in ways consistent with His character.

“Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not considered the foundations of the earth?” Isaiah 40:21 (CSBBible)

Here are examples: mountains (Psalms 95:3-5); stars and heavenly bodies (Psalms 19); life (Psalms 104)

God’s revelation is adequate.  Nature reveals enough of God that no one is without excuse.  (Romans 1:19-21).  This does not mean that the Bible, the special revelation is not critical.  The issue at the moment is whether the natural universe is completely consistent with God’s nature.  Does it declare the glory of God or do you require some special knowledge to see God’s hand?  It must not be deceptive.

YEC proposals do not diminish God’s power. It is no doubt possible to recognize wonder and beauty in the creation as coming from a great hand, regardless of the timeframe. However, they do not provide real explanations for the evidence for the size of the universe nor evidence for the age of the Earth in nature.  YEC explanations result from deciding that the earth is young and searching for loopholes to allow it to not be the age it appears to be. (Eisegesis of nature). Has anyone come to nature and reconciled the data we have today and decided that the Universe is aged in close to the 6-10,000 year range, without starting out by looking for that age? (Exegesis of nature).

Can you come to geology of the Earth and decide that the record resulted from a global flood without the knowledge of Genesis? No.

Can you decide the universe is less than 10,000 years old based on the geology of the Earth or astronomy or absolute age tests such as radiometric dating? No

Multiple independent lines of evidence point to a greater age. This fulfils the Biblical requirement for more than one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6). One can speculate, for instance, that the creation events were accelerated, but we have rate information of many types and it is hard to reconcile this with a young earth without them being deliberately set, effectively to deceive.

In J. Warner Wallace’s “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels”, he gives 5 characteristics of a true explanation:

Truth must be feasible

Truth usually be straight forward.

Truth should be exhaustive

Truth must be logical

Truth will be superior.

YEC explanations can be feasible, in the sense that God’s miraculous intervention can accomplish anything. His power could enable Him to create things that are contradictory in our space and time. However, if they are not consistent with His nature of truth, they would not be feasible.

Are YEC explanations for nature straight forward?  How did the light from other galaxies get here?  Why do so many rocks show as millions of years old radiometrically?  What do we do with ancient reefs or ancient soils or …?

If truth is exhaustive, then a YE explanation shouldn’t just explain a few odd rocks. I have yet to find a YEC explanation for an entire basin with enough detail to be useful.

I have described in more detail, geologically, when one might see the various creative events of Genesis 1 fitting, but regardless of the details, the text shows God creating in His time, in His days and by His methods.