Young Earth Versus Old Earth
Can we determine the age of the earth by counting the generations listed in Genesis? If the universe is actually older than 6,000 years, does that discredit the Bible? Does it discredit Christianity? Let's check it out.
Genesis chapter one states that God created the world (and universe) in six days. And if you bother to count up all the generations listed, the Bible seems to suggest the Earth is about 6,000 years old. A good number of fundamental Christians make the six-day, relatively recent creation a pivotal point in their faith. For them it is not a debatable question. Anyone taking a different position is "compromising the faith."
It is not my intent to review all the pros and cons of the Young Earth versus the Old Earth controversy. However, considering the importance some place on this issue, I feel obligated to state the obvious.
Light travels at a constant rate of speed - 186,000 miles per second or nearly 6 trillion miles in one year. This isn't speculation. It's a fact. Scientist call this distance a light-year.
Our nearest neighboring galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy is two million light-years away. The light we see from those stars was generated two million years ago. Galaxies from the Virgo cluster are points of light which have been traveling in space for fifty million years. And from Quasar 3C48 we are receiving light waves which were generated nearly five billion years ago.
When we gaze at the stars, we are, in fact, looking back in time. We have good reason to believe the universe has been around for a long, long time.
Moses was born in 1526 and died in 1406 B.C. He was a technological primitive - a Bronze Age man. Traditionally, Moses is also the one credited with writing the first five books of the Old Testament. Unlike Moses, we who are living in the twenty-first century have at least a passing knowledge of astronomy, chemistry, physics, and microbiology.
Life is complex, so is the universe, and so is reality. Scientists will be quick to tell you we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what there is to know. Are you still with me? Okay, here is the big question: If God had attempted to give Moses a FULL account of everything he did to create the universe and life, do you think Moses could have comprehended it?
Do you think the top scientists of today would be able to understand it? No? Would there even be words in ancient Hebrew (or modern English) God could have used to convey the meaning of what he actually did? Probably not? Then do you think the most likely explanation might be that God provided Moses with an abbreviated description of creation so he could understand it?
Everybody agrees that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament explicitly tells us when the world began. Is it possible that God did not emphasize that point because he didn't consider it essential that we know it?
Do you think the biblical genealogies are necessarily complete and accurate? If so, why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ over Jesus' genealogy? Was Jesus' father's father Jacob as recorded in Matthew 1:16? or Heli as recorded in Luke 3:23? Was the complete David to Jesus genealogy the 28 generations listed in Matthew 1:6 -16? or was the true David to Jesus the 42 generations listed in Luke 3:23-31?
If one is the literal truth, what does that say about the other? Of all the names between David and Jesus, Matthew and Luke agree on only three names: Joseph, the husband of Jesus' mother, Zerubbabel, and his father Shealtiel.
And why does Genesis skip Cainan who is mentioned in Luke 3:35-36 as Arphaxad's son? Genesis 11:12 reads: "Arphaxad became the father of Shelah when he was 35." Luke, however, shows Cainan as Arphaxad's son and lists Shelah as his grandson. Since Genesis failed to record Cainan's generation, it is not a complete record.
Some say that Genesis is a historical narrative, and we should take everything it says at face value. However, when we examine the book, we find that symbolism is prevalent throughout Genesis. How symbolic is Genesis? One way of appraising it is to compare the frequency of symbolic numbers with non-symbolic numbers.
We find 49 "sevens" in this work. After running into "seven" the forty-ninth time, you begin to suspect it is more than a mere coincidence. And indeed it is. Seven is a symbolic number which represents "completeness." Compare the number of "sevens" to the scarcities of "sixes" (8) and of "eights" (3) neither of which are used as symbols. Revelation, which is noted for its highly symbolic language and figures, uses "seven" on 53 occasions.
Ten is another symbolic number. It too stands for "completeness." Genesis reveals 19 "tens," but only 4 "elevens" and no "nines" at all. By comparison, Revelation mentions 11 "tens."
The number "ten" plays a significant role in Genesis. The book is divided into ten main sections, each beginning with the word "account." (See 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1 and 37:2.) Moreover, Genesis records exactly ten generations from Adam to the flood, and another ten generations from the flood to Abraham.
These balanced, symmetrical, symbolically correct numbers denote an artistic form. Ironically, Genesis achieves the "symbolically complete" ten names from the flood to Abraham by dropping Cainan from the genealogy. Accuracy appears secondary to form.
Symbolism is also paramount in Matthew's genealogy. Matthew reports fourteen (twice seven) generations from Abraham to David, another fourteen generations from David to the exile, and yet another fourteen generations from the exile to Jesus. But to obtain the symbolically correct fourteen names between David and the exile, Matthew drops four "unimportant" generations which are listed in Chronicles, and the author adds another generation which Chronicles does not mention.
Matthew's account: "Jehoram [was the] father of Uzziah, Uzziah [was the] father of Jotham." Matthew 1:8-9 I Chronicles reads the genealogy: "Jehoram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham." I Chronicles 3: 11-12 Here again, accuracy appears secondary to form. Biblical genealogies are not a reliable means for determining the age of the Earth. They were not intended for that purpose.
Certainly evolution relies on billions of years. It has become an article of faith for those who espouse evolution. But for those who believe in creation, age, and design are distinct issues. God's design was deliberate. Creation of life, however, could have taken place in stages. All things considered, that seems to be the most reasonable answer.
Questions to Consider:
1. Did Jesus ask us to believe in him? or that the earth was a certain age and created in six days?
2. If we were to take the position today that the earth is flat, do you think we would gain or lose credibility? By the same token, if we claim the Biblical genealogies demand a 6,000 years old universe in spite of very strong astronomical evidence to the contrary, do you think the Bible gains or loses credibility?
Genesis chapter one states that God created the world (and universe) in six days. And if you bother to count up all the generations listed, the Bible seems to suggest the Earth is about 6,000 years old. A good number of fundamental Christians make the six-day, relatively recent creation a pivotal point in their faith. For them it is not a debatable question. Anyone taking a different position is "compromising the faith."
It is not my intent to review all the pros and cons of the Young Earth versus the Old Earth controversy. However, considering the importance some place on this issue, I feel obligated to state the obvious.
Light travels at a constant rate of speed - 186,000 miles per second or nearly 6 trillion miles in one year. This isn't speculation. It's a fact. Scientist call this distance a light-year.
Our nearest neighboring galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy is two million light-years away. The light we see from those stars was generated two million years ago. Galaxies from the Virgo cluster are points of light which have been traveling in space for fifty million years. And from Quasar 3C48 we are receiving light waves which were generated nearly five billion years ago.
When we gaze at the stars, we are, in fact, looking back in time. We have good reason to believe the universe has been around for a long, long time.
Moses was born in 1526 and died in 1406 B.C. He was a technological primitive - a Bronze Age man. Traditionally, Moses is also the one credited with writing the first five books of the Old Testament. Unlike Moses, we who are living in the twenty-first century have at least a passing knowledge of astronomy, chemistry, physics, and microbiology.
Life is complex, so is the universe, and so is reality. Scientists will be quick to tell you we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what there is to know. Are you still with me? Okay, here is the big question: If God had attempted to give Moses a FULL account of everything he did to create the universe and life, do you think Moses could have comprehended it?
Do you think the top scientists of today would be able to understand it? No? Would there even be words in ancient Hebrew (or modern English) God could have used to convey the meaning of what he actually did? Probably not? Then do you think the most likely explanation might be that God provided Moses with an abbreviated description of creation so he could understand it?
Everybody agrees that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament explicitly tells us when the world began. Is it possible that God did not emphasize that point because he didn't consider it essential that we know it?
Do you think the biblical genealogies are necessarily complete and accurate? If so, why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ over Jesus' genealogy? Was Jesus' father's father Jacob as recorded in Matthew 1:16? or Heli as recorded in Luke 3:23? Was the complete David to Jesus genealogy the 28 generations listed in Matthew 1:6 -16? or was the true David to Jesus the 42 generations listed in Luke 3:23-31?
If one is the literal truth, what does that say about the other? Of all the names between David and Jesus, Matthew and Luke agree on only three names: Joseph, the husband of Jesus' mother, Zerubbabel, and his father Shealtiel.
And why does Genesis skip Cainan who is mentioned in Luke 3:35-36 as Arphaxad's son? Genesis 11:12 reads: "Arphaxad became the father of Shelah when he was 35." Luke, however, shows Cainan as Arphaxad's son and lists Shelah as his grandson. Since Genesis failed to record Cainan's generation, it is not a complete record.
Some say that Genesis is a historical narrative, and we should take everything it says at face value. However, when we examine the book, we find that symbolism is prevalent throughout Genesis. How symbolic is Genesis? One way of appraising it is to compare the frequency of symbolic numbers with non-symbolic numbers.
We find 49 "sevens" in this work. After running into "seven" the forty-ninth time, you begin to suspect it is more than a mere coincidence. And indeed it is. Seven is a symbolic number which represents "completeness." Compare the number of "sevens" to the scarcities of "sixes" (8) and of "eights" (3) neither of which are used as symbols. Revelation, which is noted for its highly symbolic language and figures, uses "seven" on 53 occasions.
Ten is another symbolic number. It too stands for "completeness." Genesis reveals 19 "tens," but only 4 "elevens" and no "nines" at all. By comparison, Revelation mentions 11 "tens."
The number "ten" plays a significant role in Genesis. The book is divided into ten main sections, each beginning with the word "account." (See 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1 and 37:2.) Moreover, Genesis records exactly ten generations from Adam to the flood, and another ten generations from the flood to Abraham.
These balanced, symmetrical, symbolically correct numbers denote an artistic form. Ironically, Genesis achieves the "symbolically complete" ten names from the flood to Abraham by dropping Cainan from the genealogy. Accuracy appears secondary to form.
Symbolism is also paramount in Matthew's genealogy. Matthew reports fourteen (twice seven) generations from Abraham to David, another fourteen generations from David to the exile, and yet another fourteen generations from the exile to Jesus. But to obtain the symbolically correct fourteen names between David and the exile, Matthew drops four "unimportant" generations which are listed in Chronicles, and the author adds another generation which Chronicles does not mention.
Matthew's account: "Jehoram [was the] father of Uzziah, Uzziah [was the] father of Jotham." Matthew 1:8-9 I Chronicles reads the genealogy: "Jehoram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham." I Chronicles 3: 11-12 Here again, accuracy appears secondary to form. Biblical genealogies are not a reliable means for determining the age of the Earth. They were not intended for that purpose.
Certainly evolution relies on billions of years. It has become an article of faith for those who espouse evolution. But for those who believe in creation, age, and design are distinct issues. God's design was deliberate. Creation of life, however, could have taken place in stages. All things considered, that seems to be the most reasonable answer.
Questions to Consider:
1. Did Jesus ask us to believe in him? or that the earth was a certain age and created in six days?
2. If we were to take the position today that the earth is flat, do you think we would gain or lose credibility? By the same token, if we claim the Biblical genealogies demand a 6,000 years old universe in spite of very strong astronomical evidence to the contrary, do you think the Bible gains or loses credibility?
