Steve Schramm
[Originally published as the first section of TCQ Week 4: Scripture and the Age of the Earth]
There are many ways people understand the Bible: Should we take it literally? If so, does that mean all of it? If some of it is allegorical, how do we know which parts? If we can’t tell, can we trust the Bible at all?
When it comes to science and the Bible, the disagreement gets even bigger. Some think the Bible and science match exactly. Others think they are completely different. Some believe the Bible has important things to say about science, but it doesn’t actually teach science.
So, where should a faithful Christian stand with all this confusion? That’s what we will talk about in this lesson.
The Six Days of Creation
When you read the first chapter of Genesis, what comes to mind? For many people, it’s the idea of creation in six days. The text is very clear. God creates something, calls it good, then moves on to the next day. Each day ends with the statement, “and the evening and the morning were the nth day.”
If you gave the Bible to a child or a new believer who had never read it before and asked them how long it took God to create everything, they would probably say six days.
Christians believed this straightforward view for a long time, until around the late 18th century, when James Hutton came along. He was a scientist and is often called the father of modern geology. Hutton studied rocks and the Earth’s layers. He noticed that the Earth seemed much older than a few thousand years. Hutton’s ideas led people to think that the Earth was shaped over a long time by processes like erosion and sedimentation. This view, known as uniformitarianism, suggested that the Earth was millions of years old, which was different from the traditional biblical view of creation in six days.
Uniformitarianism says “the present is the key to the past.” This means that the current rates and processes in the earth today have always been happening. If you were to wind back earth’s clock with these rates and processes in mind, you’d find the earth to be millions of years old.
Later, in the 19th century, Charles Lyell built on Hutton’s ideas. Lyell wrote a famous book called “Principles of Geology,” which explained these ideas in more detail. He argued that the same natural processes we see today, like erosion and volcanic activity, have been shaping the Earth for a very long time. Lyell wanted to “free the science from Moses,” meaning he wanted to separate scientific explanations from biblical ones. Lyell’s work helped to popularize the idea that the Earth is very old and influenced many scientists, including Charles Darwin.
It’s easy to see why many people think there is a conflict between science and the Bible, right? If science says one thing and the Bible says another, which should we believe? So, we need to answer two questions: Are we understanding the Bible correctly? If so, what might scientists be getting wrong?
Six Days, Really?
Aside from Genesis 1, Exodus 20:10-11 states clearly how God thinks about the original creation week:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Did you know that the idea of a “week” is the only cycle of time we use not based on astronomy? The 7-day week all humans live by is a command of God. That’s how he has chosen to structure reality.
He pointed to His own creative activity, then told the Israelites to work the same way. While some thinkers had different opinions over the past 2,000 years, no one seriously questioned this idea until scientists began to see the world as very old.
It might surprise you, but with the invention of the Internet and a resurgence of Christian apologetics over the last 20-30 years, the idea that Genesis does not teach creation in six days is becoming very popular.
I think about it in three ways:
- “Young Age” creationists — those who think the earth is 6-7,000 years old.
- “Old Age” creationists — those who think the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- “No Age” creationists — those who don’t have an opinion. This will come up again later when we talk more about the age of things, but for now, each of these views maps to a belief about the days of creation, too.
Young-age creationists believe that creation happened in six regular days. Old-age creationists usually believe the “days” stand for long periods of time. And No-age creationists usually think the biblical writers meant six regular days, but it was not meant to be taken literally (it’s more of an analogy or allegory).
Young-age creationists’ have biblical clarity and most of Jewish/Christian history on their side. Old-age creationists face more difficulty with the Bible, but have mainstream science on their side. No-age creationists claim to be able to coexist with both.
So: Are the days regular days? Long periods of time? Or non-literal?
I believe they are regular days, because:
- There is no reason within the text to question the length of the days.
- The time periods are defined within the text.
- The Israelites week was based on God’s creation week.
What are the best arguments for the other views?
Those who say the days were long periods of time believe:
There is more than one “literal” meaning of day in Hebrew, and one of those meanings is “a long, undefined period of time.”
Response: No Hebrew scholar I’m aware of would agree with this. There are better word choices if that is the intended meaning. Plus, it is the periods of light and dark that define the day; these light and dark periods cannot extend over millions of years.
The seventh day appears not to have a closing period, leaving the door open to these days being long periods of time.
Response: It is just as possible that the seventh day does not mention a closing period because it was the end of creative activity. The day was of a different nature and quality altogether. The work stopped.
Since the sun wasn’t created until day 4, the first three days could not have been regular days.
Response: This is a misunderstanding. The sun does not determine the length of a day; the rotation of the earth’s axis does. If you have a directional light source (v. 3) and a spinning earth, you have regular days.
Those who don’t really have an opinion believe:
The biblical writers may have meant regular days, but they weren’t “teaching” regular days.
Response: There are times (you’ll see soon) where I agree with this approach. But in this case, there isn’t a good argument from the Bible to make that it isn’t teaching regular days. That argument comes from science.
Genesis 1 is not about science, it’s about theology.
Response: Again, on this, I agree. But I would go a step further to say it’s about history. It seems to record what actually happened and gives no hint that it is only a story for theological purposes.
Since the days don’t relate to science at all, any mainstream view of earth history will do.
Response: While the text may not be teaching science, if it teaches true history, it might have real effects on science. Since evolutionary history would disagree with biblical history, it would not be an option.
Since Christians have believed for a long time that the days of creation are regular days, anyone who thinks differently needs to show strong evidence from the Bible to support their new idea. But usually, their evidence either comes from or is motivated by science.
This means, by firmly believing the Bible, we can be sure our conclusions are right.
