Steve Schramm
[Originally published as the fourth section of TCQ Week 4: Scripture and the Age of the Earth]
The Bible and Time: Is Creation Young or Old?
To round out this lesson, we’re going to directly tackle the subject we’ve danced around the whole time: is creation young (roughly 6,000 years) or old (roughly 13.8 billion years)?
A mentor of mine, creation biologist Dr. Todd Wood, has a simple way of putting this. There are three reasons to be a young-age creationist: text, tradition, and theology.
The Biblical Text
We have seen much evidence throughout this lesson that the text of Scripture is clear witness to a six-day-long supernatural creation event that took place on a young time-scale. But where does the 6-7,000 year number I keep mentioning come from?
Let’s work backwards. We know that if we rewind from right now until the time of Christ, that covers about 2,000 years. We also know from history that from Christ back to the time of Abraham was about 2,000 years. This information comes from the Bible and sources outside the Bible, too.
That leaves only the time from Abraham to the beginning of creation to figure out. Fortunately, in Genesis 5 and 11, we have two detailed genealogies. In fact, they are unique in all ancient history, because they give us one very important detail: The age of the father when his first son was born, and how long he lived after that until he died.
These are sometimes referred to as “chronogenealogies,” because they communicate time. When you add those dates up and add additional factors such as the age of Noah when the flood started (600), you come out to around another 2,000 years of earth history.
Some creationists err on the side of caution and say 6–10,000 years to allow for the possibility of using the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) dates, which differ slightly from the original Hebrew, and some believe are more accurate.
But the case is pretty open and shut. Some think these genealogies are non-literal (because of the ages mentioned) and can be added to (because sometimes genealogies have gaps).
- Non-literal? No. The only ancient comparison even close is the Sumerian king lists, which boast ages of 30,000+. It is not even the same type of literature.
- Can they be added to? No. Some genealogies are “open,” but these are closed, because the people mentioned seem to be direct descendants.
These genealogies trace all the way back to Adam. All you must now do is remember Jesus’ statement from Mark 10:6 that male and female were created in the beginning, which removes the possibility of billions of years of time prior to Adam.
When you put all the evidence together, it’s virtually undeniable: the Bible teaches a young creation.
Tradition
If you grew up in church decades ago, you probably were a “young-earth creationist” by default. Although the point seems simple, there’s a reason for it: You were very possibly part of the last generation to grow up thinking this view of biblical history is “assumed.”
Many Christians today will grow up without this belief.
They will grow up thinking there is room in the Bible for the Big Bang and possibly even evolution, because their pastors told them not to make a big deal out of Genesis. “Keep Jesus the focus,” they might say. I agree, except that I truly believe old-age creationism undermines the gospel (I will explain more in a second).
My point here is simple: The reason you likely grew up with this default position is because it’s been the church’s default position for 2,000 years. There were outliers, sure. There are many now. But especially prior to Hutton and Lyell, it’s hard to find scholars who don’t take the biblical account literally.
Todd Wood puts it like this:
In every age of church history, Christian authors were concerned to affirm the historical details of Genesis 1-11. Not every author paid attention to the historicity of Genesis, but enough of them did so that we may assume that this was the default understanding of Genesis. Indeed, the crises that would come about after the Scientific Revolution further confirm that people understood Genesis 1-11 as a history of the origin of the world. No one would fuss about the age of the earth, the creation of species, or the person of Adam if they didn’t think that Genesis was telling us something historical.
Theology
Let’s bring it all together by discussing the most important thing of all: the gospel.
Biblical history shows that Adam’s sin is responsible for the death, suffering, and disease in the world. Some explain this away by claiming Adam and Eve were not historical at all, but archetypal—they “represented” us but were not literal human beings created 6,000 years ago.
There is one glaring problem with this, which I’ll let the Apostle Paul explain (Romans 5:12-19):
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Paul’s point is clear: The physical sin committed by a physical human being required a physical Savior. The first man, Adam, needed to be replaced by the second man, Jesus, to restore our broken relationship with God.
Wood writes:
Theology also supports the historicity of Genesis 1–11. I once again point to the doctrine of Adam’s fall, the curse on creation, and their connection to Christ’s redemption as important and ancient features of Christian theology and identity. Looking to Christian tradition again, we find the full weight of the church fathers behind this understanding of a perfect creation, followed by a fall into sin and a cosmic curse, and finally the resurrection of Jesus as the firstfruits of the redemption of all creation. This is a central feature of Christian theology made possible by reading Genesis 3 as history.
If the creation is young, this gospel story is intact. But if the creation is old, Jesus’ literal physical death and resurrection were unnecessary. Death did not precede Adam; it was a consequence of his actions. Jesus came to fix that problem.
Can you believe in Jesus and an old creation? Yes. Many do, and many are my friends. But you must sacrifice the biblical text, 2,000 years of Christian history, and the foundation of the gospel to do it. That price is simply too high for me to pay.
