Is the earth young?

I’ve heard lots of arguments for God having used long periods of time during creation.

I’ve seen people use Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to say that God used long periods of time to create the universe and the world and everything in them.

While it may be possible that the word day and the use of evening and morning MAY be more than a 24 hour period, Norman Gueisler’s various explanations are not compelling at all. He is trying to justify not taking scripture at face value. I find his ideas about various gap theories to be adding to what is there in Genesis. It is normal reading to understand the six days of creation as actual days.

Moses certainly seemed to think God created heaven and earth in six literal days.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Yes, with the passages which mention a thousand years is like a day, you can make any verse where time is used to mean anything you want it to mean, but that doesn’t mean that is the right understanding of scripture.

The plain reading of scripture in creation does not lead one to believe God used a long period of time for creation.

Someone has stated, “[T]ime and its definition is a man made contrivance. Light year, Lunar year, Solar year, Atomic time etc… Not sure any one of us can relate time to God who is eternal.”

God is outside time. But man is not.

Man wrote as directed by God in a language understandable to man. God chose to interact with man, and He used language that is understandable to man to do it. The language used indicates a specific amount of time, and this appears to be something Moses (the one used by God to describe creation) understood as actual days.

Some people have chosen to take a naturalist position in trying to understand creation (which I dont have a problem with) and then try to change the meaning of what is written (which I do have a problem with).

I think the plain reading makes sense, given that nothing is impossible with God. If its too much to take God at His word when we speak of the miracle of creation, why would it not be too much to take God at His word when we speak of the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ? What makes one more reasonable than the other, when both are miracles?

Yes, there are places where the geneology seems to be missing one or two generations. So we may not be exact in dating the human poopulation by going by just the genealogies, but we know the genealogies are not missing centuries or millions of years.

So, going by the plain reading of scripture, and taking it at face value, I’d say the earth is young.

Does this mean the bible is incompatible with science? No. There are plenty of scientists who believe in a young earth. What it means is that naturalism is in competition with biblical creationism that supports a young earth. The facts from the geological record and other sources outside the Bible remain the same and are not refuted by either side. What IS debated is both the starting point (whether there is a God who created via a miracle in six literal days as laid out in the Bible, or whether we say that the universe was created by chance, or for some by God, billions/millions of years ago over a span of miullions/billions of years) and the interpretation of the data. That starting point changes your interpretation of the data. Will you have the world (which says there is no God and no miracles) as your authority of faith, or will you have the Bible? If you use the world to interpret the miracle of creation as laid out in Genesis in the Bible, then why do you not let the world (which generally does not accept miracles or a God) interpret the miracle of sending the Son of God to be born of a virgin, to live a perfect sinless life, to suffer and die and be resurrected again on the third day?

While young earth is not a hill I will die upon and would not cause me to lose faith if I find later that God intended us to understand something different than a short period of time was used for creation, It does seem that one must use something outside of scripture as ones authority to decide to make scripture mean something other than what the plain reading would have you understand. This makes one wonder where else does one attempt to make scripture mean something other than what the plain reading would have one understand. This make one wonder why would one use the world to interpret scripture instead of using scripture to interpret the world? Why give the authority to man instead of to God?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: