Some Miscellaneous Thoughts

on the Age of the Earth

Some Biblical Data

by Fred G. Zaspel, 1990

We have for several weeks now looked into the creation- evolution issue. This study gave
rise to a broader subject of the age of the earth, for which at least some scientific
evidence from both sides of the issue has been presented. There are many "evidences"
which are in my mind not at all conclusive--which, of course, may be due to my bias or to
my generally low IQ. On the whole, however, I do feel inclined to think that the
arguments for an older earth are more compelling -- although among creationists, this has
over the past couple decades become a minority view.

Several have asked me to now address the Biblical data related to the debate. This is a
quick and haphazard attempt to comply with those requests. As the title implies, I am just
going to take up the Biblical arguments as they come to mind. It saves me work that way.
I want to mention a few of the major Biblical arguments which we have considered
together in recent discussions -- if only in a cursory manner. For the ones I forget, I am
sure you will remind me, and then I can add another page or two to this . . . whatever it is.

The Biblical arguments seem to gather around the following issues: the Biblical
genealogies (especially those in Gen. 5 & 11), the Hebrew word translated "day," the
question of death, and the question of restoration.

Concerning Biblical chronology and genealogies I should not need to go into any detail;
details are available on the tapes. In brief, we have to recognize that there are provable
gaps in the genealogies. A comparison of Gen. 11:10-12 with Luke 3:36 shows that at
least one generation was skipped in the Genesis record. Other such examples can be
gleaned very easily from a careful analysis of the relevant data. The point is this: if we
can show even one gap in the genealogical records, then the idea that we can simply add
up the ages (at death) of the men mentioned in Gen. 5 & 11 in order to come up with
Adam's "creation-day" (or year) is destroyed. The explanation for these gaps is simply
that the terms "begat," "father," etc., simply mean something like "become the ancestor
of" or "ancestor" etc. The arrangement of the genealogies into exactly 10 names each
(Gen. 5 & 11) seems to reflect an attempt to simplify the memorization of family history
by only highlighting the "big shots" in the family tree. At any rate, this method of
counting the years cannot yield a creation date. It would be nice if it were that simple, but
that's the way it goes.

The Hebrew word "day" ( yom), as in Greek and English and virtually every language,
can obviously have a broad range of meanings; Biblical Hebrew is no different. It can
obviously specify a particular 24-hour period, or the period of time from sunrise to sunset
("daylight"), or an extended period of time (an age). The famous "day of the Lord" and
"day of trouble" passages in the prophets all consistently use the word yom to specify an
extended period of some length--regardless of your eschatological persuasion. The mere
use of yom really does nothing to support either side of the debate; other factors (context,
theology, science?) must determine its specific meaning.

I have in the past parroted the argument promoted by young earth creationists that the use
of the numerical adjective ("first," "second," etc.) with yom demands a literal period of 24
hours. Upon "more mature reflection," however, I can't see the force of the argument.
There is certainly nothing in the Hebrew language or grammar to necessitate that
position. It is a theological proposition, not a textual or linguistic one. Furthermore, it is a
bit gratuitous to argue in this way, for it would be difficult to imagine any time in
Scripture when an "age" ( 'olam or yom) would need the numerical adjective to
distinguish it from another. But a close parallel is seen in the "70 weeks" of Daniel 9.
Virtually all agree these are weeks of years--even though they have the numerical
adjective. The point is this: yom (like the Greek hemera or the English "day") by itself or
with a numerical adjective simply cannot demand either a 24 hour period or an extended
period of time. Other factors must determine its use in a given context.

So far as the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1 is concerned, both sides have problems. If
you believe they are literal 24-hour days you must explain not only a day-night cycle
without a sun for the first 3 days, but also how in 24 hours (day 6), 1) God created
animals; 2) God created man; 3) Adam sensed his aloneness (if not loneliness); 4) Adam
named all the animals (presumably by characteristics, according to ancient custom; and
how many thousand species?); 5) Adam took a nap; 6) Eve was created; 7) Eve was
brought to Adam so as to satisfy his felt aloneness. This is an awfully lot to squeeze into
24 hours! There is also the problem of the 7th day which was never closed--are we still in
it? And is this one implication of the Sabbath references in Hebrews? Then there is
Adam's statement, "This is now bone of my bone..." (2:23). The sense seems to be, "AH!
At last!," and indeed, this seems to be the force of the word "now" ( hapa'am). Finally
there is the statement of Is. 66:8. It could be argued here that yom echad ("one day"--
same Hebrew as Genesis) is in fact a reference to an age (with the numerical adjective, by
the way). I don't think it is a reference to an "age"; rather it seems to be a hypothetical
reference to the earth being made green in one literal day. But if that is true then is Isaiah
saying, in fact, that the earth was not "made green" in a literal day?

If, on the other hand, you believe the days are ages, you must somehow contend with the
wording of Gen. 1:14-19 which at least seems to place the creation of the sun on day 4--
how did the previously-created vegetation (day 3) exist for ages without a sun? For that
matter, how did the vegetation exist for ages without the insects (day 6)? Now both sides
of the issue are arguing for a different light source for days one through three--just with
different problems! So then, does Gen. 1:14-19 in fact demand the creation of the sun on
day four? Does it say that? And then there is the "evening and the morning" statement
which does seem to indicate a literal day. But then again why doesn't it say "morning and
evening"? The honest point is simply that both sides have serious questions to answer on
this one; there is Biblical data which must be considered honestly by both sides. About 5
years ago I heard a respected preacher say he just didn't know if the days of Genesis 1
were literal or not; I bristled. Looking back, I think he was simply being honest with the
evidence--more so than I.

Next is an argument from theological reasoning/ deduction. It is argued by the young

earth position that death could only have come as a result of sin; therefore, fossils dating
prior to Genesis 1 are impossible. First, the statement from Rom. 5:12 has to do only with
death entering humanity; to squeeze more out of it is simply an unfair treatment of the
text. Similarly, to argue that "since God pronounced His work 'good' there could not have
been death" is again a theological proposition which must be supported otherwise. We
cannot just assume that pronounced "goodness" of a newly created world, ipso facto,
precludes previous death--it must be shown. Further, it is obvious that there was death
before sin--of vegetation (at least the vegetation eaten by Adam, Eve, and the animals!).
And if this death be allowed within a framework of "goodness," then why not animal
death? Could Adam have stepped on a grasshopper before there was sin? I don't see why
not (for that matter, neither does young earth Dr. Whitcomb whom I heard say the same.
An interesting admission, I thought). But if this much death be admitted, then there really
is no argument left. More-over, it is likely that animals were herbivorous prior to the fall
(possibly until after the flood, Gen. 9:2-3); this scenario would not need violent death
before sin! So this argument really doesn't seem to demand much either; there are just too
many assumptions.

Finally, the idea of restoration. If it could be shown that the restored world spoken of in
the prophets (no violence, etc.) is the precise equivalent of the created world of Gen.1,
then we could "argue backwards" and show that there was indeed no death at all before
sin. But the fact is we cannot demonstrate exact parallel at all; in fact, it seems that in
many ways the new earth will far exceed the glory of the original creation--as the details
of Revelation indicate.

Related issues. The waw consecutive ("and") and the meaning of hayah ("was" or
"became"?) in Gen. 1:2 generate some debate also. Both sides very properly claim
grammatical support--the problem is that while either is allowable, grammatically, neither
is demanded. So the issue must go to other considerations. The same is true of Is.45:18--
the plain statement is that God did not create the earth tohu. It is certainly easiest to
understand that at face value, and so to see Gen.1:2 as saying that the earth "became
tohu." But if you want to make Isaiah's statement mean something like "to be
uninhabited" that is grammatically warranted also. To contend that bara ("create")
connotes creation ex nihilo ("out of nothing") is without lexical support; it is a theological
proposition argued back from Hebrews 11:3--which may be valid, but it is not a simple
matter of word definitions as many would lead you to think.

If you think by now something like, "You still haven't given me a clear answer," then you
have my point exactly. The question is simply not addressed directly by the Biblical text
(unless Isaiah 66:8?). I have read plausible explanations from both sides, and, as I said, I
tend to think the Biblical indications are that the earth is older; the evidence (both
Biblical and scientific), I think, is better, and the problems, I think, are fewer. But since it
is not a matter of clearest Biblical teaching, it is not a matter of importance--and it should
not be made such! We can demonstrate from the genealogies that the earth (man!) must
be older than 6,000 years. If you want to believe 10,000, fine. If you want to believe it is
umpteen zillion, help yourself. The Bible does not allow us to say that it is less than 6,000
or that it is eternal; the answer lies somewhere between. If science can help, that is good.
If not, there is still no problem. On this issue both sides have questions; I am satisfied
with my answers from an old earth perspective, but my point is to show that the
Scriptures simply do not speak to the issue exactly, and so to look to the indications of
honest science is not a problem. But then scientific data can be wrongly interpreted also.
Frankly, I for one am not at all concerned to fight or lose a friend over what I think
science indicates--it doesn't matter enough to me. If the Scriptures are not emphatic on
the question, I certainly do not want to pretend they are. (To say the Scriptures do not
plainly teach a young earth will lose friends in some circles!) But I do think that the
indications are that the earth is older than young.

Which brings me to a point I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the
past weeks: a young earth is not necessary to the doctrine of creation! (Remember we are
speaking of the age of the earth not the age of man.) Evolution falls (Biblically and
scientifically) with or without a young earth. Our very emphatic position is that God
created from nothing all that is and that He created man in His own image. Fight for this
till you meet your Maker, but please don't fight about the age of the earth (I Tim.1:4--a
verse which, by the way, if it doesn't apply here, I don't know where it would!). Our
loyalty is to the Scriptures--nothing less, but nothing more.

HOME

Biblical Studies | Book Reviews

About Us

Word Of Life Baptist Church Web Site - COPYRIGHT 1996 Fred Zaspel