The Genesis creation account has been a stumbling block for both Christians and non-Christians. A common objection to even considering the Christian faith has been, “I tried to read the Bible, but I just couldn’t get past the first chapter Genesis.” Sadly, the controversy that has come with these opening chapters of the Bible has kept countless people from ever hearing the important parts that come later; the truth about Christ has been hidden by misunderstandings about the creation account. The gospel is hard enough already, we shouldn’t add to the difficulty by insisting on debatable interpretations of Genesis.
Misconceptions about Genesis have, sadly, also kept many Christians from studying science and have created a mistrust of science in the Christian community. When interpreted correctly, Christian scripture and nature should be in harmony. God created the universe and inspired the Bible, so both should agree. If we read the Genesis creation account correctly, it doesn’t have to be a barrier to either science or Christianity.
As a science teacher and a Christian, it is important to me to look at both subjects objectively and rationally, realizing that salvation is based on belief in Christ, not the age of the earth and not the age of the universe. I think the evidence from both the Bible and current science support an old earth view. You canbe a Christian and at the same time accept the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and the universe to be 13.8 billion years old.
Really good science is done by non-Christians. In fact, science that actually confirms what the Bible teaches is done by people who assume a naturalistic position. While I am sure there are dishonest scientists, the vast majority look honestly at the evidence. Just because they may have a non-Christian world view does not mean that they will come to bad conclusions. For example, we accept all kinds of scientific research done by atheists in the areas of medicine, automobile and airline technology, and electronics. Why do we question it when it has to do with the age of the Earth and the universe?
Most scientists know that when they propose a modelfor nature, it is probably not fact and is probably not representing exactly what nature is like. Scientists generally enjoy that our view of nature constantly changes and what we state as “fact” now might not be “fact” 50 years from now. For a scientist to become famous, they usually need to find evidence that overturns an accepted paradigm or disproves an existing theory, so most are trying to do just that! In terms of evolution, the mechanistic model for howlife evolves has changed in the last few years; this is why we continue to do research. However, there are areas in science that have been studied so exhaustively they do disserve the “fact” label. One example is speciation; the fact that micro-evolutionary changes in an isolated population can cause a new species to emerge. The age of the earth and the universe, confirmed with multiple lines of evidence, is also in this category.
Scholars have been analyzing Genesis for thousands of years and there is no conclusion as to the onecorrect way to interpret the creation account. Historically, most scholars have emphasized that the Genesis creation account does not specify the date or the time period over which the creation took place. The view that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old is not taught in the Bible. The 6000-year date came from Archbishop James Usher in the seventeenth century and almost no evangelical scholar today holds this view.
There are several possible interpretations that are not “literal”; many theologians take the account to be figurative. Genesis does not specify that creation was done in six 24 hour days. The earliest commentaries on Genesis from first century Jewish scholars show a mix of views on the age of the earth and 24-hour creation days. Philo (where?)wrote that the six days are figurative and are a metaphor for order and completeness. Josephus was undecided about the meaning of the expression “one day.”
It is important to realize that those who advocate long periods of time for the six “days” of creation are not saying that the context requiresthat these be understood as periods of time. They are simply saying that the context does not clearly specify for us one meaning of dayor another, and if convincing data about the age of the earth, drawn from many different disciplines and giving similar answers, convinces us that the earth is billions of years old, then this possible interpretation of dayas a long period of time may be the best interpretation to adopt.[1]
New Testament writings do not confirm that Jesus believed in a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1. In fact, many of the early church fathers (who were closer in time to the teachings of Jesus) were tolerant of several views of the creation week; early Christian writings on the subject were also inconclusive and open to several views. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (a student of Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp, who were all students of the Apostle John)both suggested that the “days” could be thousand-year epochs. Clement of Alexandria (a third-generation student of Mark and a fourth-generation student of Peter) echoed Philo’s teaching that the six days are figurative and are a metaphor for order and completeness. Augustine wrote quite a bit about the creation days and concluded that the Genesis creation day is different from our understanding of a day.
Except for Augustine, the early church leaders expressed their views [on the Genesis creation account] tentatively. There is no indication that they sharply debated the issue or took a dogmatic stance. Instead, they charitably tolerated a diversity of views.[2]
Genesis is, of course, more about theology than it is about science. Since the Bible is a theological text, the emphasis is about God and what He wants us to know about Him. The crucial, undebatable points of Genesis are as follows:
1. God is the creator of the universe.
2. Creation (nature) is separate from God.
3. Creation is ordered and under the control of God.
The creation story in the first chapter of Genesis is the introduction of this theology. The day-by-day structure of the narrative shows that creation is very systematic, and the text makes it obvious that the true God is the only onedoing the creating. The seven-day motif also sets up the Jewish doctrine of the Sabbath. As an aside, for the scientist, nature being orderly and separate from God allows us to do science!
An interesting interpretation of Genesis comes from Johnny Miller and John Soden, in their book, In the Beginning… We Misunderstood. Miller and Soden show how the main purpose of the Genesis creation account is to correct the Hebrew people’s improper view of creation that had been corrupted by 400 years of living in Egypt. They claim that the teachings were necessary to break free from ancient Egyptian creation myths and teach the Hebrew nation the correct way to think about the beginning of the universe. This view does explain why Genesis 1 roughly matches an Egyptian creation myth, while Genesis 2 has the general pattern of Ancient Near Eastern creation myths.
Genesis is not presenting a new local deity to Israel, but, as the introduction to the Pentateuch, it is calling for Israel’s absolute allegiance to God, who claims absolute sovereign control. At the same time, the account demotes all the gods of Egypt and every other civilization with which Israel may have contact.[3]
The view that Genesis is a theological text, with the fact that scholars throughout history have disagreed on what a creation “day” means, ensures us that a scientist who holds to the earth being 4.5 million years old can be confident that they are not “creating a partition in their head.” Skeptics can also be certain that to become a Christian does not require you to think that God created the universe in a week only thousands of years ago.
Jewish Genealogies are theological, and they have gaps and cannot be used to specifically date a historical event in the Bible. The “witness who was there” did not tell us the age of the earth because the writings were concerned with teaching something more important.
It seems fair to conclude that the genealogies of Scripture have some gaps in them, and that God only caused to be recorded those names that were important for His purposes. How many gaps there are and how many generations are missing from the Genesis narratives, we do not know. The life of Abraham may be placed at approximately 2000 B.C., because the kings and places listed in the stories of Abraham’s life can be correlated with archaeological data that can be dated quite reliably, but prior to Abraham the setting of dates is very uncertain.[4]
Moving to science, almost everything about observational astronomy contradicts a recent creation! We doobserve the past directly. When you look out into space, the light you are seeing is from the past! We view the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago, the sun as it was 8 minutes ago and the Andromeda Galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago. We actually have a “picture” of the universe when it was 380,000 years old. The horizon “light travel time problem” no longer exists with the recent data we have from the Planck satellite.
We are also observing the past directly when we are studying fossils and when we are investigating old atmosphere trapped in ice cores. When radiometric dating is used correctly and corroborated with several dating techniques (as is usually done) it is accurate. Here is a long explanation for the accuracy of radiometric dating: www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens2002.pdf
The discoveries in the past 50 years are getting closer to confirming that the laws of nature haveremained constant throughout the history of the universe – including the speed of light -, so you canextrapolate what you see now to what has happened in the past. For a discussion of this, go here: https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2013/03/04/sandage-test-affirms-biblical-creation-model-and-constant-laws-of-physics
The Genesis Flood account has also been a stumbling block for both Christians and non-Christians; the truth about Christ has also been hidden by misunderstandings about the Flood account. The Bible is indifferent as to age of the universe and it also does not have to be interpreted as teaching a global flood. I believe the Genesis flood is better understood as a local phenomenon from boththe evidence in the Bible and the evidence from nature.
In his book, Navigating Genesis, Hugh Ross lays out both the scientific and the biblical evidence to show that it is reasonable to believe that the Genesis Flood was not universal, but instead was a local phenomenon.[5]
The Biblical Evidence (taken from Navigating Genesis):
1. Six other “worldwide” events are mentioned in scripture – that are obviously not referring to the entire world. Genesis 41:57 says that the entire world came to Joseph because the famine was world-wide. 1 Kings 10:24 says the entire world sought audience with King Solomon. Luke 2:1 says that all the world should be registered. Acts 2:5 states that Jews from every nation under heaven were staying in Jerusalem. Paul writes several times that “Your faith is being reported all over the world.” Each of these references to a “world-wide” occurrence point to an area less than the Earth’s entire surface.
2. The permanence of “dry land” and ocean boundaries is affirmed in several passages elaborating on the creation days(Job 38, Psalm 33, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8).
3. When Peter writes about the Genesis Flood, he adds a qualifier that refers to the world at that time, implying that the extent of the world at the time of the flood is not the same as the extent of the world in Peter’s time.
Twice in his second epistle, Peter addresses the extent of Noah’s flood. In both cases, Peter qualifies the Greek word cosmos, translated as “world.” In 2 Peter 2:5 he writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire. The limitations that Peter imposes upon Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human reprobation. An obvious example is God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.[6]
4. We can deduce, from Genesis 1:28, Genesis 9:7, and Genesis 11 that God’s command to multiply and “fill the earth” was being ignored and that humanity had stayed in one geographical area.
5. In Genesis 1-9 all the place names mentioned belong to settlements in Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf Oasis.
6. Genesis 7:22 uses the Hebrew word harabain reference to the land that was flooded. Unlike the Hebrew words eresand adama, haraba’sdefinitions constrain it from ever applying to the entirety of Earth’s surface.[7]
7. The Hebrew word kasathat has been taken as meaning that the mountains were covered with water could merely mean that the mountains were hidden from view by the storm, as well as a few other translations that would not require mountains to be covered by twenty feet of water.
If the Ark were floating anywhere near the middle of the Persian Gulf or the vast Mesopotamian plains on water as much as two or three hundred feet deep, no hills or mountains would be visible from his position. From there Noah would only see water. The high mountain ranges surrounding the Mesopotamian region and the Persian Gulf would lie beyond Noah’s line of sight.[8]
8. The Hebrew term for “all the high mountains” can also be interpreted as a small hill.
9. The Hebrew adjective gaboahapplies to any elevation above the plains.
10. Genesis 8:4 reports that the Ark came to rest on the mountainsof Ararat, not Mount Ararat. The entire Ararat range extends all the way down to the Mesopotamian plain and contains elevations ranging from hundreds to thousands of feet.
11. Genesis 8 also tells us how God removed the floodwater from the land: He sent a wind. This drying technique perfectly suits what a flooded plain such as Mesopotamia would require. This drying technique would prove of no use for removing the waters of a global flood.
12. Genesis 7 and 8 reports where the water came from and where it returned. The quantity of water in these subterranean reservoirs (aquifers), and in heavy rain clouds measures vastly less than the quantity required for global inundation. The verbs used also suggest that the floodwaters returned to the places from which they came, implying that God moved water from one location on the Earth to another and then returned it.
The Scientific Evidence (taken from Navigating Genesis):
1. Marine fossils found on high mountains are a result of 15 million years of plate tectonics.
2. Earth only contains about ¼ of the water necessary to cover the entire globe.
3. The energy required for rapid, aggressive tectonic activity (needed to explain a worldwide flood causing all the features of the earth we now see) exceeds what the laws of physics would permit and would destroy the planet.
4. The radical, temporary acceleration of radioactive decay rates necessary to explain the rapid plate tectonic activity is ruled out by scripture as well as scientific observations. Scripture tells us that the laws of heaven and earth are “fixed,” unchanging from the moment God put them in place (Jeremiah 33:25, Ecclesiastes 1:1-11). Scripture also tells us that God does not deceive and He often refers to nature to teach us about Himself.
5. For all land animals on the earth today to have descended from the pairs aboard the ark contradicts firmly established biological limitations. Also, the idea that eight people could care for the needs of the numbers of animals required defies reality.
It is impossible with our current scientific understandings to explain how a flood could cover the entire earth and how a single boat could carry every species of animal; these are the main stumbling blocks within the Flood account that keep many from pursing Christianity further. God’s purpose for the flood was to get rid of the evil on the earth at the time. If humanity was not spread over the entire earth, it would not have been necessary to flood the entire earth. God could accomplish His purpose by flooding only the populated areas and killing only those animals that had been affected by the evil; it would not have been necessary to kill a cougar in North America if it had not been affected by the evil of humans. This logic by itself removes the two stumbling blocks: The Flood only had to be in the areas occupied by humans at the time and the ark only had to carry the land animals that existed in those locations.
Many Christians are concerned with an old earth perspective because it requires that animals and plants died before the fall of man. This is also not contrary to the Bible. For a good explanation of this, go here: www.reasons.org/articles/animal-death-before-the-fall-what-does-the-bible-say
God both inspired scripture and created nature; they should not be in conflict! By taking a strong view of scripture and a strong view of nature, we can remove barriers to belief and show how unified the record of nature and the Bible are; providing reasons why it is rational to trust the Bible and why it is reasonable to be a Christian.
In conclusion, I want to again stress that salvation is based on belief in Christ, not the age of the earth, not the age of the universe, and not a global flood. The purpose of this post reflects the overall purpose of the blog: To show skeptics and Christians that you can believe the Bible, you can be intellectual, and you can use your mind without having to fear or belittle science. Current science that shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and the universe to be 13.8 billion years old; both these dates agree with what the Bible teaches. When interpreted correctly, Christian scripture and nature should be in harmony. God created the universe and inspired the Bible; both should agree.
[1]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Zondervan, 1994.
[2]Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, NavPress, 2004.
[3]Johnny Miller and John Soden, In the Beginning … We Misunderstood, Kregel, 2012.
[4]ibid
[5]Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis, Reasons to Believe, 2014, pages 145-182
[6]Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe, http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2016/11/02/does-the-bible-say-noah-s-flood-was-global-or-universal
[7]ibid
[8]Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis, Reasons to Believe, 2014, pages 150-151
