by John A. Holzmann
(Last updated 11 January 2006)
Preface
Over the last few years, it appears that the vast majority of evangelical Christian homeschoolers--and certainly the majority of leaders in the evangelical Christian homeschool movement--have aligned themselves with a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Specifically, they have aligned themselves with what is known as a Young-Earth creationist (YEC) perspective, a viewpoint preached by many, but, in homeschool circles at least, most notably and powerfully advanced by Ken Ham, the founder and president of Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org).
I wrote the following paper because, it seems, the move to a YEC perspective has been so strong that any Bible-believing Christian who dares publicly to raise serious questions about the YEC model risks social ostracism and possible official exclusion from homeschool groups or events on that ground alone 1.
I am dismayed by this apparent division in the Body of Christ. I am saddened by the chilling effect these attitudes and actions seem to portend for honest scholarly, intellectual, and, ultimately, biblical study. I am grieved to think that some would seek publicly to deny the opportunity for fellow lovers of Christ to ask openly whether there may not be a better way accurately to interpret the Scriptures. And so I want to see whether I might help to heal the breach and reopen the opportunity for communication.
Clearly, our beliefs in this area of the age of the Earth can affect our exegesis of Scripture [exegesis has to do with explaining or interpreting something--especially a piece of literature (the Scriptures!--see 2 Peter 3:16)--that is complex or difficult]. They may affect our apologetics [apologetics has to do with answering critics of fundamental Christian beliefs]. They may affect our ability--for better or worse--to evangelize effectively. But, I believe, we evangelical Christians need to be careful that we do not permit the debate, like the "endless genealogies" in the time of Apostle Paul, to "promote controversies rather than God's work" (I Timothy 1:3-4).
On the one hand, we must not teach false doctrines (I Timothy 1:3), but we must not promote controversies, either (I Timothy 1:4). I am afraid that the Old-Earth/Young-Earth debate may be at the point where some of the spokespeople are, indeed, promoting controversies rather than the work of God.
Since the majority of the evangelical Christian homeschool movement seems to be committed to the Young-Earth perspective; since, therefore, it is the advocates of an Old-Earth perspective who are most likely to be shoved out the door; since I am concerned, as St. John Chrysostom was, that the Body of Christ would show "[i]n essentials, unity; in non-essentials, charity; [and] in all things, Jesus Christ"; since, in our curriculum, I try to speak to a large and diverse group of people who, I know, believe differently one from the other in this area; since, moreover, Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., is committed to teach from an international, Christian, missions-minded perspective: my purpose here is to try to help thoughtful Young-Earth creationists to understand how and why someone who is truly concerned to uphold the Scriptures might come to believe a bit differently--or even very differently--from what Young-Earth creationists teach.
My purpose is not to advocate for an Old-Earth view. I am not interested in "converting" anyone to such a view. I am, myself, very uncomfortable with the implications of a lot of Old-Earth theorizing and its implications for biblical interpretation.
But I think the subject ought to be discussed. I think the evidence ought to be addressed. There ought to be a few people in the homeschooling marketplace who are willing to stand up and say that Old-Earth creationism (OECism) is not the same as atheism, heresy, or, as the people at Answers in Genesis suggest, a reliance upon the wisdom of man in opposition to the perfect Word of God. Adoption of an Old-Earth perspective is not, in itself, a sure sign that a person has abandoned his or her faith in or desire to ingest the "pure milk of the Word."
Before I get to the body of the paper, I would like to address those for whom the entire Old-Earth/Young-Earth debate seems foolish.
I have quite a number of people ask me, "Why does it even matter? Who cares? What difference does it make? This whole debate is so . . . unimportant."
So let me begin by attempting to answer those questions.
Why is the Age of the Earth Such a Big Deal to Many Christians?
Many Christians suggest that the Young-Earth/Old-Earth debate is of vital importance not only or merely because there is a vast difference between 6,000 to 10,000 years on the one hand, and 5 billion-plus years on the other. But, they say, this debate is important because of a syllogism, a logical and appropriate progression of thought:
- Either God did things as the Bible says He did them, or He did things differently.
- If God did things differently than what the Bible tells us, then the Bible lies and/or isn't God's word.
- If the Bible lies and/or isn't God's word, then it isn't worthy of our trust.
- If the Bible isn't worthy of our trust, then Christianity isn't worthy of our trust, either.
By these logical steps, beginning from a "scientific" inability to believe that the Scriptures are trustworthy, many people who once committed themselves to love, honor, and obey the Lord Jesus Christ have been led in their adult years to abandon their Lord and Savior.
The point: if we can't trust the biblical account of creation, then we have no reason to trust the Bible as God's authoritative word at any other point, either.
Let me say: Sonlight Curriculum is in full agreement with this point of view. We agree with those who say that if we shrink from defending the truth of Genesis 1-11, we cut very close to--if not completely through--the heart of the Gospel message itself.
The Apostle Paul says that "as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men . . . how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:12, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 15:45ff).
Genesis 1-11 forces a question upon us: Was there, or was there not, a first Adam, so that Jesus Christ can be a contrasting second (1 Corinthians 15:47)? Or consider Noah: Was he a real person whose faith we are to emulate (see, for example, Hebrews 11:7)? Or was he a mythic figure whose exploits we can (and ought) to safely ignore?
As we have said, Sonlight Curriculum is committed to the Bible as the very Word of God, a Book that teaches true history.
We believe, however, that a correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is extremely difficult--perhaps more difficult than the interpretation of almost any other section of Scripture.
And herein lies a problem.
Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ believe that a scientifically well-informed person can--and ought--to believe the Scriptures for what they seem to say on their surface, "literally.". Indeed, they find it offensive if someone even suggests that a surface--or "literal"-- reading may be problematic.
They say--or at least strongly imply--that to question the "obvious" interpretation of Scripture (their "obvious" interpretation!) is to question the very Word of God.
I beg to differ.
While such questioning surely challenges interpretations of Scripture, it need not indicate or lead to a skeptical view of the Scriptures themselves.
The Plain Teaching of Scripture?
Many Young-Earth creationists claim that the Bible is "clear" about the "fact" that the Earth is 6,000- to 10,000-years old. They follow the lead of Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) who, in the 1650s, attempted to work out a chronology for ancient world history based solely on the date clues found in the Bible. When he was done, he concluded that Adam and Eve were created in 4004 BC (on Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC, Julian Calendar, to be exact).
While most Young-Earthers are willing to concede that Ussher almost assuredly did not hit the date of creation "on the nose," they wish to limit the age of the Earth and the creation of Adam to no earlier than 10,000 years ago at the very most.
Having said this, however, we immediately come upon a problem. While the Bible itself, as we believe, is without error in its original manuscripts, 1) we no longer possess those manuscripts, and, 2) far more importantly (because we believe that God has preserved His Word against substantive corruption), we are not God; therefore, we do not have an automatic understanding of what those manuscripts really meant--what they were intended to communicate.
Problems of Interpretation
Anyone who has engaged in any type of serious translation work--especially a translation between widely divergent cultures--can understand the difficulties of the task. In case you are not aware of the kinds of difficulties cultural differences may create, let me illustrate.
A Bible translator was working with a tribal group in Southeast Asia. The translator, as all good translators do, would regularly read his work to a group of informants to see if they understood his translation and to ensure that what he had written was conveying accurately to them what he thought the original text meant.
The translator had come to Luke 13:32 where Jesus is said to have referred to Herod as a "fox." As he read his translation of Luke 13:32, the men who were listening burst forth with laughter. And not just a little laughter. Some of the men were holding their bellies as they rolled around on the ground.
"'Herod, that fox' is a funny turn of phrase," the Bible translator thought to himself, "but it is not that funny! I wonder why these men are laughing so hard?" --So he asked them: "Why are you laughing?"
One of the men was able to control himself long enough to choke out a reply: "If a man is a 'fox,'" he said, "it means"--and here the informant spoke in a high falsetto--"he speaks with a high voice." And the implications of a man speaking with a high voice? Why, he is effeminate!
"No! No!" the missionary protested. "Jesus didn't mean that! He was saying Herod was sly, crafty, deceitful."
"Oh!" the men replied. "Well, in that case, then, you need to say 'that mountain lion'! Herod was a mountain lion."
Ah. Exactly. Just so. . . . Or not? For our purposes here, we will try to sidestep the theological and practical difficulties that the informants' reply raised (since the Scriptures tell us we should neither add to or subtract from God's Word: Would it be a sin to use the word that refers to mountain lion in place of fox? Would it be better to translate fox as "that sly and crafty man"? . . . ).
My point is simply this. People around the world often use linguistically identical words to achieve very different purposes. Clearly, Herod was neither a mountain lion nor a fox. But in one culture he could be characterized as the one animal, and in the other culture he could be characterized as the other. Was Jesus lying when he referred to Herod as "that fox"? Was he seeking to mislead those of us who are alive today by using this figure of speech? My conviction: no, on both counts.
But similar problems in translation and interpretation occur in many areas that we, in our culture, think ought to be crystal clear and beyond misunderstanding.
The fact is, the same words in different languages really and legitimately may have completely different meanings. No one is "lying." No one need charge the other with "misleading." But we must, in one way or another, address the fact that a person who is a fox in one culture and language is a mountain lion in another.
When it comes to dates and ages and chronologies, we must address the facts that, for example, a baby that has just passed through the birth canal may be zero years old (literally speaking) in one culture and a full year old (literally speaking) in another. And a baby born one day in one culture (on "New Year's Eve") may be two years old the very next day! (In China, babies are one year old on the day of their birth. They advance a year in age at each New Year. (All the babies born during a particular year are the same age.) So a baby in China born on New Year's Eve will be two years old the very next day, while your baby, born on New Year's Eve will have 364 days to go before s/he is even one!)
My purpose, here, is to illustrate the truth--well-recognized by cross-cultural missionary Bible translators; not so well-known by others--that translation and interpretation is not a "simple" or "mechanically accurate" function. It takes real skill, and knowledge, and insight, and research. And sometimes we just don't know.
Evangelical Bible scholar Roland K. Harrison once wrote:
It would seem evident that while the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis had real meaning for those who were responsible for their preservation in the first instance, they cannot be employed in a purely literal sense as a means of computing the length of the various generations mentioned in the text.2
And those of us who are attracted or committed to a Young-Earth or "traditional" (Western!) interpretation of the Bible, may want to say: "The man is simply trying to cover his own disbelief. He is saying what he is because he has some preconceived notion (evolutionism!) and he wants us to think he still believes in the Bible, even though, obviously, he does not."
I ask you to be careful before you make such a charge against your brother in the Lord. Can you be sure you are correct?
I first read Harrison's comment years ago when I was a student in seminary. In 2002, I came across a book by Jacob A. Loewen, a missionary and Bible translator. Loewen tells a story that touches on the same issue we're discussing here. He isn't talking about the age of the Earth. He's talking about translations and culture.
When we look at the Bible "through the eyes of our own culture" only, he says, we miss a goodly portion of the Bible's message.
Africans, for example, have great interest in the genealogies of the Bible, and find them significant. I first noticed this when I observed committees of African translators working on the Gospel According to Matthew, with its genealogy of Jesus' ancestry. Matthew lists fourteen generations from Abraham to David, another fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and a final fourteen to the birth of Jesus (Mt 1:1-17).
When one group of African translators read the three sets of fourteen generations listed there, they held a long discussion, speculating about why the people in the Bible remembered only fourteen generations, when African people like themselves remembered sixteen. Did that imply inferior memories, or what?
[Comment by John Holzmann: Notice how the Africans' cultural assumptions affected their interpretation! Notice how they placed great emphasis on a feature of the text that we will barely notice. Moreover, they interpreted this feature in a "scientific" (or medical/biological) manner. They assumed the number implied something about the mental capacities of Jews! . . . But back to the story.]
I was intrigued because for me biblical genealogies were totally uninteresting and of no significance. "What do you do when you reach the seventeenth generation?" I asked.
"Oh," they said, "we consider sixteen to be the maximum that a non-literate person can remember, so when the seventeenth king dies, the elders of the tribe review the sixteen. If one of them is not considered important, but the king who has just died accomplished a great deal, they eliminate the unimportant one from the genealogy and add the deceased king. If the recent king is not very important, they don't count him."
[Comment by John Holzmann: Notice how the Africans' culture is at work! They are asking completely different questions about the genealogies than we do! Moreover, the fact that each set of names includes "only" fourteen generations causes them no difficulties at all. They don't ask "why" each set includes that many names--a question that we in the West are prone to ask. They assume the answer. They "know" it: "Fourteen is all the names that people in that culture can memorize." And rather than asking whether these lists are "accurate" or not, or "complete" or not, they innately recognize that certain names have been left off: "No big deal!" . . . But to us in the West it is a big deal! Everyone is important. Completeness and accuracy is important. We may be bored to tears when we have to read the genealogies of the Bible; we may avoid them as much as possible; but we are pleased to know that they exist and that Biblical scholars can puzzle their way through and use such lists to calculate (what we hope is) an accurate age of the Earth. . . . ]3.
Does the Africans' interpretive scheme make no sense? Are you willing to charge them with some kind of ungodly prejudice that leads them to interpret the Biblical genealogies in such a way that they can "force" an Old-Earth interpretation on an obviously Young-Earth Bible? I hope not!
I have no idea what the Africans' ideas may be about the age of the Earth. Mr. Loewen never tells us. As I said above, his concern, and the concern of the African translators, had nothing to do with how old the Earth is.
My point is simply this: that what many Young-Earth advocates believe is an "obvious" interpretation of Scripture may be wrong. While it is clearly "obvious" to them, it is not so obvious to others! Indeed, some very different interpretations are "obvious" to others (note the Africans' interpretation), and the difference in perspective has absolutely nothing to do with an aversion to a Young-Earth view. While some of those for whom a Young-Earth perspective is non-obvious may be Old-Earth creationists, there are others for whom it is non-obvious who hold no "scientific" prejudices against the Young-Earthers' perspective in the least.
In sum: while the YECs' over-all schema concerning the age of the Earth may be correct, it is possible that they are wrong. And we ought not to assume that those who question their interpretations are anti-Bible. Moreover, we cannot simply decide to trust one interpretation of Scripture (say, the Young-Earth creationists') and say, "They are right, and whoever comes to a different conclusion is a scoffer and an infidel!"
Does It Make Sense for Us to at Least Look at Scientific Data when Interpreting Scripture?
Martin Luther, we are told, once wrote, "This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy [by claiming that the Earth spins on its axis and that the Earth revolves around the Sun]; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."4. [Luther is referencing Joshua 10:12-13 where "Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: 'O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.' So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies."]
Most Christians--even most leaders in the Young-Earth creationist movement--no longer read verses like Joshua 10:12-13 the way Martin Luther seems to have read it. Indeed, our brothers and sisters at Answers in Genesis say that those who think they see geocentrism taught in the Scriptures are reading it into the text rather than finding it there to begin with.
[Note: Geocentrism is the idea that the Earth is fixed--stationary--at the center of the universe. The Sun, Moon, stars, and all the planets revolve around it. Besides Joshua 10, geocentrists will also point to such Scriptures as Psalm 93:1 in the King James Version as evidence for their viewpoint: "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." The alternative theories to geocentrism are Copernicus' heliocentrism (in which the Earth and all the planets revolve around the Sun) or geokineticism (which simply means that the Earth moves).]
Russell Grigg, for example, notes in his essay, "Joshua's Long Day" (found on 9 September 2002 at the AIG website: www.answersingenesis.org/docs/243.asp), that Joshua 10:12-13 "uses the language of appearance and observation"--i.e., describes the apparent movement of the Sun from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer rather than from the beyond-this-world perspective of God.
Or as Dr. Danny Faulkner writes in the introduction to his essay "Geocentrism and Creation" (accessed 8 March 2005 at www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp), "[T]he Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric."
That's what these Young-Earth creationists say. But how do they know these things? On the basis of Scripture? Or on the basis of science (i.e., "man's fallen wisdom") being brought to bear upon Scripture?
As you read his article, Dr. Faulkner's arguments sound reasonable and convincing. Indeed, I think he is "right on."
But try using these arguments with members and supporters of The Biblical Astronomer (TBA; also known as the Association for Biblical Astronomy)! Listen to what those brothers and sisters have to say. Their arguments against Copernicanism and against "compromisers" and "Biblioskeptics" like Dr. Faulkner sound remarkably like the arguments I have heard many [non-geocentric] Young-Earth creationists use against their Old-Earth brethren.5.
Anyone who suggests the Earth is not at rest in the center of the universe, say TBA supporters, has abandoned the clear teaching of God's Word. Indeed, they say,
the Bible's authority is weakened by [any other view]; . . . the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to "up" and "down"; through the question of just what the earth was "orbiting" the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Here the Moderator of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: "And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay. . . ."6
To suggest that the Bible does not teach geocentrism is tantamount to saying that human science is superior to God's Word, say the TBAers. While "everyone since Adam can understand that Isaiah 55:12 is a literary device [Isaiah 55:12 speaks of the trees "clapping their hands"], . . . there is not a clue to tell those before Copernicus that Joshua 10:13 is not to be taken literally."
Indeed, the Church's entire modern slide away from faith is directly traceable to the seed sown by faithless (or, at least, misdirected!) men like Copernicus:
[E]ither God writes what he means and means what he writes, or else he passes off mere appearances as truths and ends up the liar. The ultimate issue is one of final authority: is the final say God's or man's? This is brought home again and again by humanists, such as the twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell and astronomer Ivan King, who point to the church's abandonment of geocentricity as having "freed" man from the ancient God-centered outlook on life to the modern man-centered outlook. . .
The Copernican Revolution, as this change of view is called, was not just a revolution in astronomy, but it also spread into politics and theology. In particular, it set the stage for the development of Bible criticism. After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the "rising of the sun," then how can He be taken literally in writing of the "rising of the Son"?
To summarize the geocentrists' position in the most succinct manner possible:
[T]he reason why we deem a return to a geocentric astronomy a first apologetic necessity is that its rejection at the beginning of our Modern Age constitutes one very important, if not the most important, cause of the historical development of Bible criticism, now resulting in an increasingly anti-Christian world in which atheistic existentialism is preaching a life that is really meaningless.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. -- Isaiah 8:20
[Accessed 10 January 2006 at www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/credo.html.]
If you are familiar with the kinds of arguments that our brothers and sisters at Answers in Genesis use, you will recognize some powerful parallels here.7. Indeed, internally, I find the TBA presentation quite a bit more attractive, on its surface, than I do those who would suggest, as Dr. Faulkner does, that the Bible is "neither geocentric nor heliocentric."
To reference the TBA author once more: how could any ordinary Christian have interpreted the Bible in the manner Dr. Faulkner suggests . . . unless and until s/he had been influenced by Copernican doctrines? Who would have even imagined thinking in non-geocentric terms prior to the Copernican Revolution? So, in a sense, isn't it true that Dr. Faulkner is "setting science above Scripture"? 8
Please understand: I use this “setting science above Scripture” phrase only to illustrate a point. This is the kind of language I have heard Young-Earth creationists use as a pejorative to cast Old-Earth creationists in a negative light—indeed, to suggest that people who hold such views obviously twist Scripture to evil purposes . . . (apparently unlike Young-Earth creationists who, by contrast [say the speakers], subject their science to the Word of God).
I find the geocentrists' historical references to Biblical criticism and atheistic existentialism equally cunning. What self-respecting conservative Christian would ever want to be associated with any such things?
But we must dig below the surface. Are the geocentrists' charges valid? Just because they sound good, does that make them good? . . . And until we evaluate them thoroughly, should we automatically accord them--because they sound so Biblical, so holy-- . . . should we accord them the right to pre-empt all others?
I ask these questions because it is this kind of behavior I find too many homeschoolers engaging in as they listen to the Young-Earth creationists. When YEC speakers brand Old-Earth creationists as unbiblical, and when they associate OECs' positions with those held by people of unsavory character, far too many homeschoolers are ready to accept the YEC speakers' statements as "gospel," without evaluating carefully to what extent they are valid.
A note on the matter of “setting science above Scripture”
Let me state that I believe God gave us our minds and enabled human beings to develop the scientific method in order to acquire wisdom and to gain knowledge--true wisdom and true knowledge. I believe it is legitimate to seek to know more today than people knew yesterday or two thousand years ago. And I believe God intends for us to use that wisdom and knowledge in the service of His Word. He desires us to bend all our energies--not only of our spirits, but of our minds and bodies as well--to obeying His commands (see Mark 12:30).
Therefore, I believe, not only is it a grave injustice to those dedicated brothers and sisters who are engaged in scientific research, but it is a grave mistake for any of us to suggest that we cannot, or ought not, to use science to help us interpret the Scriptures or to do the work of God.
Yes, of course our science must be submitted to the Scriptures. But our interpretations of Scripture, too, ought to be moderated by our scientific understanding. Our understanding of science and our understanding of Scripture, I believe, ought to work together in a virtuous cycle of interactive and mutual correction. . . .
Scripture, in that sense, is made to submit to science. But science, too, is forced to submit to Scripture. Scripture, ultimately, must have the last word. But when do we know we have made it to the end? When do we, as limited, fallible human beings, know that we have fully and accurately comprehended what the Word of God is saying? --I think we will never arrive at that destination until we stand before God face to face. Until that day, we will continue to "see in a mirror, dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). And for as long as that remains true, we ought to conduct ourselves with appropriate humility and grace . . . before both God and man.
Young-Earth creationists say that their Old-Earth brethren are "compromisers" when they want to (re-)interpret Genesis 1-11 with the aid of their understanding of modern science.
I believe the Old-Earth creationists would have every bit as much right, if they wanted, to say that they are no more "compromising" than their Young-Earth creationist brethren who are not also geocentrists. "On what grounds are you willing to reject the 'obvious' meaning of the Scripture passages that 'teach' geocentrism?" the Old-Earthers might ask. "If it is modern science that has led you to reject a literal interpretation of those numerous portions of Scripture that 'obviously' teach geocentrism,9. why are you unwilling to permit the same science to lead you to at least consider alternative (i.e., in this case, Old-Earth) interpretations of Genesis 1-11 without branding them as unscriptural?"
And so the arguments go.
But my point is not to mock Young-Earthers, geocentrists, or Old-Earthers. My point is to appeal to members of each one of these communities to beware of their tone, to avoid mockery, and to carefully evaluate the legitimacy of the "arguments" they use to bolster their cases.
In this particular paper, I want to ask Young-Earthers, especially--because I am a member of the homeschool community and because, in the homeschool community, they are in the majority and are positioned to squelch all presentations coming from other directions: I want to appeal to you, especially, to be careful to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Use only those kinds of arguments against others' positions that you believe, in your heart, you would want them to use against yours. If you believe that such an "argument" would be invalid if used against you: see if that same argument is truly valid when used against those you perceive as your opponents. If not, then do the right thing: discard it for the sake of honesty, integrity, and the honor of Jesus' Name.
Clearly, Christian preachers in the past have used their interpretations of the Bible to oppose and mock other viewpoints, other interpretations--viewpoints and interpretations that almost everyone, Young-Earth creationist and Old-Earth creationist alike, now believes are not only good science, but wholly in line with acceptable and, indeed, the best Biblical methods of interpretation.10
Alan Hayward, a British physicist who is concerned about the relationship between science and Scripture, concludes his comments about interpretive differences with these words:
It is only too easy for us, with the benefit of hindsight, to say, "Luther and Co. ought to have been more humble. They should have said, 'We think our interpretation is correct, but we admit that other interpretations are possible. Maybe those Scriptures do not intend to describe things as they really are [i.e., from God's omniscient (all-knowing) perspective. --JAH], but only as they appear to be from our viewpoint.'"
But the fact is that their kind of behaviour has been very common among enthusiastic believers of all ages. If we had been in his shoes, many of us would probably have fallen into the same trap as Luther and thumped our Bibles as we denounced Copernicus.11
My conclusion? I believe we need to keep our hearts and minds open to the possibility that what we read “on the surface” of a passage (controlled by our 21st century Western cultural viewpoint) may not be correct. A phrase that we want to interpret “literally” as loaded with scientific import, may actually have little scientific importance at all. While we may wish to say, “See! The Bible tells us that the Sun stood still (implying that it is the Sun that normally moves and not the Earth!)”—it is possible that upon further observation and deeper study we will discover that we were wrong, that what we inferred from the passage, what we were sure was accurate, based on our interpretation of the words, may in fact be incorrect.
Are you willing to acknowledge such a possibility? I hope so!
What Biblical Evidence is There for an Old Earth (or an Old Universe)?
Once more: please remember my purpose here. I am not trying to convince you that the Earth is older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old. When I am addressing an audience comprised primarily of Old-Earth creationists, I argue the other side of this question. But because I am addressing Christian homeschoolers (primarily), and because I believe the majority of Christian homeschoolers are familiar with the Young-Earth arguments and are not familiar with the arguments of their Old-Earth creationist brethren, I am merely trying to present some arguments that would move my Young-Earth creationist brothers and sisters to grant mercy to my brothers and sisters who believe differently on this matter of the age of the Earth.
Let me begin my presentation about Biblical evidence by referencing an article called “Morning has broken . . . but when?” by Russell Grigg. I found it on the Answers in Genesis website at www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/morning.asp (accessed 8 March 2005).
I use Mr. Grigg's article partially because I believe it is instructive about our need for humility in dealing with people with whom we disagree. We can be absolutely convinced of the things we believe, but we need to hold some glimmer of open-mindedness to hear another perspective. We need to listen. And we need to speak with grace and humility.
If we have studied a matter in depth, we ought to feel no compunction to state what we know. But we should also admit that we haven't necessarily comprehended (our minds probably haven't fully encompassed) absolute Truth!
With that as background, let us look, briefly, at Mr. Grigg's article.
Morning Has Broken . . . But When?
It seems to me that the crux of Mr. Grigg's argument is to be found at the point where he says:
The phrase 'heaven(s) and earth' . . . [t]hroughout the Bible . . . means the totality of creation, not just the Earth and its atmosphere, [n]or our solar system alone. . . .
One of the words in this Hebrew figure of speech is the plural noun shamayim, which signifies the 'upper regions' and may be rendered 'heaven' or 'heavens', depending on the context. The essential meaning is everything in creation apart from the Earth. The word translated 'the earth' is erets, and here refers to the planet on which we now live. [Emboldened emphases added.]
He says, "The phrase 'heaven(s) and earth' in Genesis 1:1 is an example of a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism, in which two opposites are combined into an all-encompassing single concept"--in this case, then, "the totality of creation--the universe."
If I'm reading him correctly, it sounds as if Mr. Grigg is quite sure and wants us to believe, along with him, that wherever in Scripture we find the phrase "hashamayim [the heaven(s)] v' [and] haerets [the earth]," it always "means the totality of creation, not just the Earth and its atmosphere, [n]or our solar system alone."
Would you agree?
Whether you do or you don't, I would like you to consider the significance of Genesis 1:6-8.
When we read (in Genesis 1:6 and 7) that God created an "expanse" (or "firmament") "in the midst of the waters"; that He then separated the waters so that some of the waters were below and others above the "expanse"; and when we read that God Himself called this "expanse" shamayim: I have to ask: Does this sound like the shamayim that we know of as "the solar system," "outer space," or even "the universe" (apart from the Earth)?
I guess it is possible that God may have been referring to outer space and the universe when He spoke of this "expanse"/shamayim, but it's not the kind of thought that hits me when I read the passage. Indeed, from my youth, I have always thought that the "waters above" the "expanse"/shamayim were the clouds that we see in the sky--the kinds of clouds that can rain dihydrogen oxide (ordinary rain water) upon us. . . .
I read Genesis 1:20 and find my youthful interpretation strengthened when I find that the birds fly "above haerets across the 'expanse' of hashamayim." I don't know of any birds that fly in outer space.
Mr. Grigg says, "The Bible [in Exodus 20:11, where it refers to 'the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them'] unequivocally states that everything in the universe was created within a time period of six days . . . , and thus nothing was created before these six days" [emboldened emphasis in the original!].
Again, he is so absolute in his claims, so uncompromising, so sure of himself and of his interpretive capabilities: "The Bible . . . unequivocally states"; "nothing was created before these six days."
Really?
Before I refer you to a couple of passages that seem clearly to tell us that some things were created before "the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them," let me note that, in context, and when thinking of what things God placed in "the heavens" (birds--Genesis 1:20-21), "the earth" (vegetation, animals, and human beings--Genesis 1:11-12 and 24-27), and "the sea" (fish and other swimming creatures--Genesis 1:20-21), it makes a lot more sense to me to think that what is primarily in view in Genesis 1 and 2 is not "the universe," but is the earthly biosphere.
If you would care to disagree with me, that is fine, and I would be happy to hear your arguments. But my point, again, is to show that the evidence to which Mr. Grigg refers is not quite as open-and-shut as he wants us to believe. It is not "unequivocal" that Genesis 1 and 2 refer to "everything in the universe."
I said I believe there are a few Scriptures that seem clearly to show Mr. Grigg is wrong when he says that "nothing was created before these six days." Let us turn to them now.
- What do you make of Proverbs 8:22-31? --Doesn't it suggest that something existed--indeed, was "brought forth as the first of [God's] works"--before the Earth and the heavens were made?
- What of Job 38:7? According to Mr. Grigg's interpretation of Genesis 1, when do the morning stars and angels get created so they can be singing together and shouting for joy when God laid the earth's foundation, set its footings, and laid its cornerstone?
- What of John 1:3 where it talks about the creation of "all things"? Mr. Grigg suggests that "Hebrew has no word for 'the universe' and can at best say 'the all.'" --Okay. So why doesn't Genesis 1 say "the all"? John 1:3 refers to "the all." Why doesn't Genesis?
Here's one that may not be quite as directly fruitful:
- Why are there all kinds of references elsewhere in Scripture (i.e., outside of Genesis 1) to God laying the foundation of the Earth and stretching out the heavens, but there is absolutely no discussion of these activities in Genesis 1? Is Genesis 1 really the story of the entire creation of all the universe? Or is it a description primarily--indeed, almost entirely--of the creation and organization of the Earthly biosphere (as Gorman Gray suggests in his The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?12)? (Check out Isaiah 40:21, 48:13, 51:13 and 51:16 for just a few references to the "founding" and "stretching" activity of God.)
- Psalm 102:25 says the foundations of the earth were laid "of old." Elsewhere we read that the heavens are "of old." What does "of old" mean? Three thousand years (about what it would have been at the time of David, when, according to a Young-Earth view, the psalm was written)? Maybe. Micah 5:2, however, seems to suggest that it could be a bit longer than three thousand years. We read there that the origins of One Who was to come out of Bethlehem, One Who would be ruler over Israel, "are from of old, from days of eternity."13
(Please understand: I am using a rhetorical device. There are other places in Scripture that refer to "days of old" that can be no more than a few hundred years in the past. Again, my purpose is not to suggest that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I am merely trying to argue that the case for a 6,000-year-old universe is not, to my mind, quite as cut-and-dried as Russell Grigg suggests.)
Jim Burr, author of a paper entitled "A Biblical Answer to the Starlight & Time Problem," writes, "The term 'of old' is never used in Genesis 1 or 2. It is never used in connection with the creation of the earth, but in connection with laying the foundations of the earth." He goes on: "I am suggesting that [God] laid the foundations of the earth 'of old' and then about 6000 years ago he formed it. Further support would be found in Psalms 90:2, and Isaiah 45:18 as well, where it says that God 'formed' the earth."
After spending 10 closely-spaced and closely-argued pages presenting