THE AGE OF THE EARTH – II

Evidence of an old earth
    In our last blog post we noted the discrepancy between the Genesis account of creation and the usual interpretation of the geological column, and suggested that the geological explanation may be faulty and that scientists are misreading the fossil record. But what about other evidences of an old earth? How do they square with Scripture?
    There is compelling evidence that the earth itself and the universe as a whole are considerably older than a few thousand years. Radiometric dating of rocks, based on the half-life of radioactive elements, indicates that the earth is billions of years old. Other evidence for the age of the universe is based on astronomical observations. We know from the speed of light that it would take light a certain amount of time to travel from a distant star to us. We can also gauge how long stars have been burning, and can tell by the Doppler effect that the universe is expanding, Based on all of these factors Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer and a Christian, estimates that the universe is approximately 17 billion years old (Creation and Time, Navpress, 1994, p. 95).
    But does that conclusion contradict Scripture? What does the Bible actually say about the age of the earth?
    Most young-earth creationists would acknowledge that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies upon which Archbishop Ussher based his calculations. But even making allowances for that, it is hard to conclude from the Biblical data that Adam was created more than tens of thousands of years ago. Dr. Ross tries to escape from the problem by relying on the
"Day-Age" Theory, in which the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis 1 are not taken as literal 24 hour days, but rather as very long periods of time. Another approach that has been suggested in recent years is the "Literary Framework" interpretation, which argues that it was not the intention of the author of Genesis to provide a literal description of the creation process. Rather, the author's intention was to make certain theological points. Genesis 1 is apologetics, not science.
    We think, however, that there are serious objections to both the Day-Age Theory and the Literary Framework interpretation. For one thing, the word "day" is defined in the text itself: "So the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5; NKJV), suggesting a normal solar day. This impression is reinforced later on in the passage when the sun and the moon were created, "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night" (v. 16). They are "to divide the day from the night" (v. 14). Here the normal rhythm of day and night is definitely in view. It is hard to see how an ancient Israelite could have been expected to take the language of the text any other way, and indeed, until the advent of modern science, virtually no one did take it any other way.
    Moreover, the days are numbered in sequential order. On each day it is asserted that God did something. Furthermore, an explicit connection is made between the seventh day and the weekly Sabbath observed by the Jews: "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made" (2:3). Thus neither the Day-Age Theory nor the Literary Framework interpretation are construing the text very honestly, and hence are not likely to help us resolve the issue of a universe that has all the appearance of being very old.
    There is, however, another possibility. Stay tuned!