Recently I had a letter from a friend explaining his questioning of accepting a literal six days of creation. In the following comments I try to give my reasoning for sticking to the literal six day interpretation.
My Friend writes. Many dedicated Christians differ in their views on how God created the world, and the exact interpretation of the six days, the age of the earth, etc. The question when Christians argue isn’t “Did God do it?”, but how He did it, and when He did it, or how long it took.
Dear Friend, I think it is those who have been intimidated by Big Science that feel it is necessary to agree with the millions of years and try to find a compromise in Scripture. People who want to sound intellectual or be accepted by other intellectuals find it hard to say they believe in a literal six-day creation as it sounds so unscientific and as if they have “blind-faith” in the Bible. Perhaps they do not feel comfortable with the religious right which very strongly defends a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one and do not want to be stereotyped as such. I sympathize with you. I can understand how you would not wish to be included in that group. However, that should not affect your analysis of the question at hand.
I really enjoy listening to Dr. William Craig Lane, but when he says his expert on Jewish language says that “day” in Genesis chapter one does not necessarily mean “a twenty-four hour day,” I believe he is mistaken. Weston Fields has written Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory which comes to the very opposite conclusion of Lane and his Jewish linguist. Also, the late James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and professor, said in a personal letter dated the 23rd of April 1984,
"So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of twenty-four hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the biblical story; (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the Ark."[1]
Ken Ham commenting on the above quote said,
Please note that many, if not most of these world-class scholars do not believe in the Bible or Christianity anyway, so they are not interested in wrestling the Scriptures to somehow try to make their religion fit with evolution. Disbelieve it if you wish, but it is impossible to make out that Genesis is saying anything other than what it says. We can see now that those who say that the clear teaching of Genesis is not what it actually means are not doing so on the basis of literary or linguistic scholarship but because of partial surrender to the pressure of evolutionary/millions of years thinking. In actual fact, they are making man the starting point and his opinion the foundation -- not God and His Word.[2]
Dr. Davis Young, a Christian geology professor at Calvin College and an old-earth advocate has said,
It cannot be denied in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the 18th century was that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Not until the development of modern scientific investigation of the earth itself would this view be called into question within the Church.[3]
I have talked about the history of the idea of millions of years in a previous article which you may have already seen in The Naturalistic Assumptions of Evolution and Modern Science, and will attach with this article if you have missed it.
Lane also seems to accept the millions of years. So although he does well on part of apologetics, which we can learn from and glean some techniques, I believe he hasn’t looked closely enough at the material available to understand the scientific arguments in favor of the six-literal days. The real problem is the doctrine of millions of years (of earth time). Evolution is the child of millions of years. Once you accept millions of years because you think science has proven millions of years to be true, then you need to look for ways to put the Bible in line with what one believes science has found to be true. You are actually putting science above the Word of God. There is just no place in a plane reading of Genesis chapter one for millions of years. People who accept the assumption that science has irrefutably proven “millions of years” succumb to looking for ways and reasons why Genesis chapter one does not really mean what it says. Satan’s ploy is still the same as in the Garden of Eden, “Did God say?” The millions of years is the problem.
My friend continues. Non-believers often start from the basis that God didn’t create the world. Christians who debate with other Christians on the subject are in a different arena altogether. I’ve seen that many sincere Christians are looking for ways to sync up those things which are considered scientific realities within the scientific community (including scientists who are Christian) and with Scripture. They believe that Scripture teaches that God created the world. They also believe that all science isn’t false or wrong. My understanding is that they believe both things are true, that God created the world from nothing (ex-nihlo) and that the age of the world is much older than is portrayed in Scripture.
The old age of the universe is the very point that is an assumption and not a fact. Once you accept the millions of years as fact, then you need to change your understanding of Genesis chapter one. Once you believe the millions of years then a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one is incompatible. Once people believe the millions of years they have to adjust their reading of Genesis chapter one because a plane reading of Genesis chapter one leads only to a literal interpretation. The question therefore becomes did millions of years occur? Is the science of millions of years correct? And on the other side, is the Bible wrong? What is our initial assumption? Is our initial assumption that science can give us the truth? Or is it that the Bible really is a true revelation from God? If we believe the Bible is true, then maybe we should look and investigate the science and see if the science is somehow wrong or based on wrong assumptions.
When we are talking about the past, science cannot prove how things happened in the past. It can speculate and then test to see if their speculation is an agreement with the visible evidence in the present. Ultimately we will interpret the evidence in accordance with our belief system. Scientists view the evidence or data in the present and then extrapolate backwards and theorize about the past according to their initial assumptions in the present about the past. Scientists usually start with a belief and then do their science to confirm their belief system. Both creationists and evolutionists do their science in this way as there are no unbiased scientists. Each starts with initial assumptions which they believe are true and then do their science. The question becomes which bias is the best bias to be biased with? Since both theories are based on assumptions or belief systems we need to see which theory can more accurately predict future discoveries? Which theory more accurately is supported by the data or evidence we have in the present? Which theory has fewer contradictions or needs fewer supporting assumptions in places where the theory breaks down? And being Christians, which theory lines up with a simple understanding of what the Bible says?
Do we doubt whether Jesus walked on the water or was raised from the dead, even though science says is it impossible and never could happen? No, we don’t, because we have faith in God’s Word, and have experienced Him in our hearts and lives. But the world has accepted the millions of years as fact, because ‘science’ says so. We, therefore, find it hard to stand alone with God’s Word and Genesis chapter one, because ‘science’ seems to have proven that the universe is billions of years old, and it seems most people believe it. Since we do not have a very thorough understanding of the question or of the theological implications of our viewpoint or of the science available that supports a literal six-day interpretation, we succumb and compromise our stance. We do not want to appear old-fashioned and ignorant or to have just “blind faith.” Therefore, we adjust our literal view and say we just don’t know, or it is not important, or it’s a side issue. But the theological implications are immense.
If we accept millions of years of life before the Creation week, we end up with death before sin. Fundamental Christian doctrine says death is the result of Adam’s sin and therefore humanity needs a redeemer -- Jesus. By accepting evolution and millions of years, we unintentionally destroy the reason for our Redeemer -- Adam’s disobedience in sin. Jesus’ sacrifice in the end becomes unnecessary and meaningless. A very close friend of mine for many years and an active Christian had the following comment when I asked him his opinion of the importance of the six-day literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one. He said,
If it wasn't six days, then you basically have to throw the whole thing out, as without Original Sin, Jesus' death is pretty insignificant; and to try to say that as Monkey-man evolved there came a time when God zapped a ‘human’ spirit into two of them, it's pretty ridiculous, as well as contrary to Mat.19:4 where Jesus said ‘Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female’ -- which means that Jesus can't be trusted, as either He knew better and was lying, or He was deceived like the others, and hardly divine, in either case. It’s like cutting off a leg of a chair: the entire thing collapses, or you have to run all around making a hundred readjustments to everything else. The truth is that it’s either six literal days, or the Bible goes in the garbage. Another point to consider is about Gen.1:12-13, in juxtaposition with verses 16-19. So, God made vegetation, and then had it just sitting around in the darkness for an age or an eon or a season or period or epoch or whatever, and then He created the Sun. Twenty-four hours without sunlight for photosynthesis is fine, anything else means that the entire chapter, story, and book is worthless, leaving Moses as an invalid author.
It seems to me, there is not really any other alternative, no middle ground. Even evolutionists have recognized the importance of the millions of years in destroying the basic Christian doctrine of Original Sin. However, Christian scientists have found satisfying scientific possibilities that are in accordance with the literal six-day interpretation. Many evidences seem to indicate that the universe is not as old as old-earth scientists claim it is. Dr. Russell Humphreys is one scientist that goes over the different dating methods that seem to indicate that the universe is much younger than evolutionists would like us to believe.
He shows that 90% of the dating methods used to measure the age of the earth and the universe indicate a much younger universe than secular scientists would have us believe.
My friend continues. They are therefore looking into ways to show that both things are true. I personally don’t see those who believe in six literal days or those who believe in six different ages, as being better or worse Christians.
Whether or not they are better or worse Christians has never been the question, nor do young-earth creationists doubt the salvation or sincerity of old-earth creationists. The old-earth creationists may even come across more compassionate and tolerant and less dogmatic. Yet, it seems to me that for some reason the old-earth philosophers or scientists have not looked deeply enough into the questions of origins and for some reason have accepted a compromised stance. It may be that they don’t like religion or don’t want to become a conservative Baptist. It may be pride or it may be they are Roman Catholic and are comfortable with evolution and millions of years, and don’t realize the theological inconsistencies.
I believe if men continue in their search for truth, God will lead them into all truth as He has promised in His Word. Once they find that there do exist scientific answers that back the six literal day Creation they may be more willing to come over to the young-earth creationist view point and add a more compassionate face to the young-earth camp. It might be because of the sometimes self-righteous or solemn religious attitude of their older religious Brethren, the young-earth Creationists, which cause some to remove themselves from those who sometimes come across as less tolerant and accepting of others. Or it may be some other reason that they have not yet been illuminated by God’s Word to the truth found in Scripture. But if one does not accept the assumption of millions of years it is quite easy to accept the plane reading of the Scriptures, with no need for these other additional assumptions and theories. See one of the following links by Dr. Terry Mortenson who gives a good history lesson of the millions of years and its affect on the Christian church.
My friend continues. But rather as people who are seeking to really understand creation while being true to Scripture. As long as the belief is that God created all things from nothing and He created mankind, how He did it becomes a little less important.
They are important because it is the authority of God’s Word we are doubting. This is what happened to Billy Graham’s friend Charles Templeton. He ended up an atheist. We end up saying that Scripture is wrong and God didn’t mean what He said. Many of the famous American seminaries like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton started as learning centers of Christianity. Once they accepted the scientific postulation of millions of years in the 1800’s and then some form of the Gap Theory, they ended up with greatly-compromised Christian studies, and look where they are today. It is a slippery slope that leads away from the truth of God’s Word. It leads to the belief that God made a mistake when He wrote Genesis. Jesus was mistaken when He said that about believing in Moses and his words and when He quoted from the Old Testament. We end up not being able to trust the authority of God’s Word. Instead we believe the changing opinions of man’s scientific theories; theories that are based on naturalistic assumptions and the belief that there is no supernatural and that God does not exist. We end up believing that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.
If you need more information about the assumptions of naturalistic science, Dave Schoch does a good job of exposing them in his book The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution. The following video touches some of the point addressed by Schoch.
Phillip E. Johnson (a rational apologist) also has done some good work on the assumptions behind the theory of evolution. His book Darwin on Trial was one of the foundation books of the Intelligent Design movement. Here he is delivering a lecture on the topic.
Dr. Russell Humphreys has also done some programs explaining the “proofs” for a young earth.
The Catholics say it does not really matter out of fear of the scientific/intellectual community. Look at what has happened here in Spain and Portugal as a result. We see very little resistance to the millions of years/evolution and young people are walking away from their faith in droves. If we want to ultimately throw away the Bible and its authority, then it does not really matter. But even a Catholic priest Father Victor P. Warkulwiz in England is fighting to bring the Catholic Church back to the six literal days of creation and young-earth belief which he believes is the traditional and correct interpretation. See the below A.I. generated video expressing Father Victor P. Warkulwiz's view.
End of Part 1.
Footnotes:
[1] Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms- Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1997, pg. 50-51.
[2] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years, Master Books, 1987, pg. 95 [3] Young, Christianity, p.25. as quoted by Brian Young in Doubts About Creation!, CIP, 2008, pg. 44.
Originally published September 8, 2014. Edited and republished June 2, 2026.
1 Comments:
A good research paper with many connecting links for those who really want to look at the creationist's side of the argument.
Post a Comment