Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

US $3.50
View Item
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

US $2.00
View Item
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

US $2.00
View Item
The Young Earth, Revised & Expanded
by John Morris

US $20.00
View Item
Thousands ... Not Billions
by Dr Don DeYoung

US $14.00
View Item
Thousands ... Not Billions
by Dr Don DeYoung

US $10.00
View Item
Thousands ... Not Billions
by Dr Don DeYoung

US $10.00
View Item

The age of the earth and why it matters1

NASA, Wikipedia

earth

The Bible teaches that God created the earth approximately 6,000 years ago.

by Dominic Statham

Published: 4 May 2017 (GMT+10)

From time to time, we meet people who reject evolution and would call themselves ‘creationists’, but who, nevertheless, accept that the earth and its rocks are millions of years old. In some cases, they feel that identifying as ‘young earth creationists’ would cause them to appear foolish and that this would undermine the credibility of their Christian witness. In responding to this, I believe that it is a mistake to begin with science. Instead, I find a better approach is to talk about God, His nature and glory, His original, perfect creation and how this changed due to our sin. This helps people to see why an ancient earth cannot be reconciled with the Bible’s teaching.

The glory of God

God’s love, holiness, justice and wisdom are beyond telling. Such is His glory that anyone who actually saw Him might expect to die. When God’s goodness passed in front of Moses, God had to provide protection, placing him in a cleft in a rock and covering him with His hand (Exodus 33:19–23). In heaven, God is worshipped incessantly, day and night (Revelation 4:8). The worshippers prostrate themselves before Him proclaiming, “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Revelation 4:11, emphasis added).

Nothing but a Creation characterised by perfection, harmony, beauty and loveliness could have done justice to such a Creator.

From this we can conclude that the world that God originally made must have been something very special. Nothing but a Creation characterised by perfection, harmony, beauty and loveliness could have done justice to such a Creator. We can be sure of this because the Holy Spirit Himself testified that “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). There would have been no disease, carnivory or death; and the wolf would have lived with the lamb as will be the case again one day, when Christ finally restores all things (Isaiah 11:6).

The Fall

Needless to say, we don’t live in such a world today and, in the third chapter of Genesis, we are told why. Representing the whole of humanity, Adam and Eve rebelled against God and embraced evil. Consequently, God pronounced judgment: women would now give birth in pain, and food would be procured from the ground through painful toil (Genesis 3:16–17). At the same time, physical death entered the world: God said to Adam, “For dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19). Theologians refer to all this as the Fall. The creation fell due to our sin, and this is the Bible’s explanation for why the world is as it is today—why it’s now so full of terrible things like disease, suffering and death. This also explains why there are natural disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, and why the animal kingdom is often predatory and violent.

Elmion, Wikipedia

dinosaurs

Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs died out approximately 65 million years ago. Why then do their remains include unfossilised organic material, such as blood vessels, blood cells, soft flexible tissues, bone proteins and DNA?

The doctrine of ‘the Fall’ is very important because it enables Christians to answer atheists when they claim that there can’t be a good God as the Bible teaches because of all the suffering in the world. The Bible makes clear that such things were not part of God’s original creation and, therefore, He is not responsible for them; rather, man is. This answer only makes sense, however, if we accept the order of events taught in Genesis: An original perfect creation that God declared to be “very good” and which subsequently fell due to our sin. As soon as we place the fossil record before Adam, with all its testimony to a fallen world, we open the door to the charge that God is to blame for it.

Belief in a recent Creation is consistent with the teaching of Christ.

When Adam disobeyed God, God cursed the ground and said, “thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you” (Genesis 3:18), and Christ’s crown of thorns symbolised the cursed creation that He took upon Himself and redeemed. However, many assure us that fossilised thorns are found in rocks that are millions of years old. They say that these plants lived millions of years before man ever walked the earth—and therefore millions of years before anyone was around to sin. Well, did thorns come before or after sin? If we believe the Bible, they came after sin. If we believe what many tell us “science says”, then they came before sin. If so, then the Bible is wrong; and it matters because, if bad things existed before mankind sinned, isn’t God then responsible for them? And don’t atheists, then, have a point? Only by accepting biblical timescales and rejecting the view that the rocks are millions of years old can we safeguard the glory of God.

Many, however, don’t accept this and try to fit millions of years into the Bible. Some say that the days of creation were really long periods of time. Others say that there was a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Others put the gap between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3. Still others argue that Genesis 1 is poetry and so can accommodate any view of the age of the earth. But why? Why do they argue in this way? I believe that, for many, the explanation is that they have been persuaded that ‘science’ is an unassailable authority and they have been persuaded that this unassailable authority has proven the world to be millions of years old. Hence they think that they must fit millions of years into the Bible somehow. But it’s surely bad theology. It must be because it puts the Fall before sin and makes God responsible for what is, in realty, the consequences of our disobedience.

The Bible should be its own interpreter

If we make Scripture the interpreter of Scripture we avoid all these problems. For example, in Exodus 20, God Himself confirms the correct understanding of Genesis 1. He said,

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. … For in six days the Lord made heaven and 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 (Exodus 20:8–11).

Table 1 shows that there is a clear parallel between Genesis 1 and Exodus 20. Both are referring to the totality of creation, and Exodus 20 confirms that this took place in six ordinary 24 hour days.

Genesis-Exodus

Belief in a recent Creation is consistent with the teaching of Christ. In Mark 10:6 He said, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Hence, Jesus put Adam and Eve at “the beginning” and not millions or billions of years after God had created the earth. The Apostle Paul taught the same. In Romans 1:20 he wrote, “For His [God’s] invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world”. Here Paul makes clear that people have beheld God’s handiwork “since the creation of the world”, and again not millions or billions of years later. The writer to the Hebrews also put Adam’s Fall at the beginning. Arguing that Christ needed to die just once to obtain forgiveness of sins, he maintained that, otherwise, “He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world” (Hebrews 9:26, emphasis added).

What about science?

Science has shown the earth to be billions of years old only if we are selective about what evidence we accept and what we reject. It is true that a case can be made for an ancient earth from radiometric ‘dating’. However, one particular radiometric ‘dating’ method known as ‘carbon dating’ consistently indicates the earth to be young.2 In fact there are dozens of scientific observations supporting a belief in a recent creation.3 The discovery of preserved organic material in dinosaur fossils, for example, provides very strong evidence that these creatures roamed the earth just thousands of years ago.4

When scientific observations are contradictory, it is normal to conclude the science cannot provide the answer. However, when it comes to evolution and the age of the earth, many people do not do this. Instead, they filter the facts by the paradigm that asserts that ‘evolution is true’ and therefore ‘the earth must be very old’.

Conclusion

The age of the earth is not a side issue as the glory of God and the authority of the Bible are at stake. Scripture clearly teaches a recent creation and this view is not in conflict with science. Christians can stand on these on these truths and confidently proclaim the true Gospel of Christ.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Based on an article that first appeared in the CMI-UK/Europe Prayer News, October 2016. Return to text.
  2. Batten, D., ed., The Creation Answers Book, ch. 4, 3rd ed., Creation Book Publishers, USA, 2009; creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf. Return to text.
  3. Batten, D., Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe; creation.com/age-of-the-earth. Return to text.
  4. Smith, C., Dinosaur soft tissue: In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years; creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue. Return to text.

We support belief in an intelligent designer—the God of the Bible. This site was also ‘intelligently designed’. But rather than six days, it’s taken thousands of days. Help us design more information for this site. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Gerrit B., Canada, 8 May 2017

Dominic,

Excellent article, and existential to our YEC position. One small suggestion: In the middle, change "rejecting the view that the rocks are millions of years old can we safeguard the glory of God." to "rejecting the view that the rocks are millions of years old can we safeguard our calling to glorify God." I believe that is more biblical, as God does not need our glorifying Him, nor do we increase His glory when we do, yet He does call us to glorify Him. Soli Deo Gloria. Continued blessings to you and CMI!

Richard L., United Arab Emirates, 6 May 2017

Thanks, Dominic!

To fellow young-earthers (YE): Please be aware that many old-earth Christians are mentally blocked from YE evidence—both in the bible and in science—while still wanting not to compromise. While wanting: to submit to the bible, to “let God be true and every man a liar”, to hear the “whole counsel of God”. I used to be one of them. I remember embracing the scorn of the world while defending the Bible against evolution, etc. Yet I was still blocked—and couldn’t allow myself to notice this. Please pray for release for such old-earthers.

To old earthers: Please ask God to seek out your hidden ways (Ps. 19:12 cf 44:21; 51:6)—and bring them to conscious light. Inspect geological-thinking history (using resources from Terry Mortensen and others). (1) a weak (remnant-inference, historical) science exists within geology—where signals are delicate. (2) Strong bias can overwrite such signal data. (3) This happened in the 1700s. Non-Christians didn’t want to see rock evidence for Noah’s Flood. (4) When deeper fossil-bearing layers were discovered, they insisted on a long-timeframe explanation in SUBSTITUTION for Noah’s Flood. (5) Having only a descriptive geology, they COULDN’T disprove Noah’s Flood. (6) They FALSELY PRESENTED THEIR WORLDVIEW-BIAS AS BEING SCIENTIFIC FACT. (7) The church got captured. (8) From resultant tradition: bringing up this issue now is seen as ‘unnecessary’ controversy.

From 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "but test all things, hold fast the good" insight, the church in the late 1700s got captured by false obligation. They held fast without first doing adequate testing. Scientists seek objective truth in nature. The church, then, wrongly assumed long-timeframe was proven and required.

Thus, Bill P., the anger you experienced.

Eric B., United States, 5 May 2017

Bad things did exist before man ate from the wrong tree. To see that, we need to look not only at what the Bible says but also what it doesn't say in Genesis 1. Specifically, the Bible doesn't say when Lucifer and the angels were created. Certainly, the angels are creatures themselves, but Genesis 1 says nothing directly about God's creation of the angels. Furthermore, in Genesis 1 there are not any specific descriptions of the fall of Satan and the third of the angels that he took with him when they were cast to the earth (Revelation 12:4). But Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 mention the existence of Lucifer, and his becoming Satan as a result of his fall had to occur before Adam was created, otherwise there would have been no serpent seeking to deceive Adam and Eve. Thus, when brother Dominic writes "if bad things existed before mankind sinned, isn’t God then responsible for them?", it is obvious that bad things did exist before Adam sinned, namely, Satan and the other angels who fell with him. (As far as God's responsibility for His creation, the answer is found in Romans 9:19-23. God is sovereign and righteous in whatever He does. If we don't accommodate science at the expense of the word of God, we certainly don't acquiesce to the fool who says in his heart there is no God.) The question then is what are the actual biblical timescales described in Gen 1. A more accurate translation of Gen 1:2 sheds light on the timeframe. "But the earth became waste and emptiness..." (Recovery Version) points to an event that produced a damaged universe, whereas the KJV obscures the Satanic cataclysm following the original creation. Moreover, God's words to man in Gen 1:28 to subdue the earth and have dominion over it and all the creatures indicate an enemy existed before man fell.

Dominic Statham responds

The statement, “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31) refers to what had been created on Days 1 to 6. Personally I lean towards the view that this included the angelic host (see here). If correct, then Satan’s fall must have occurred sometime between the end of Day 6 and his temptation of Adam and Eve. However, even if you take the view that the angels were created before the creation week, our universe and our world must still have been perfect at the end of Day 6 (because God himself said so).

When Satan entered the garden of Eden, Adam, who had been given authority over the earth, could have commanded him to leave and he would have had no choice but to obey. The unfallen creation would then have remained perfect and, presumably, Satan would then have been immediately cast into the eternal fire prepared for him and his angels (Matthew 25:41). As we know, Adam did not do this and entertained the intruder instead.

"But the earth became waste and emptiness ..." is a very poor translation of Genesis 1:2 and the 'gap theory' you advocate wholly unscriptural, as made clear here:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter3.pdf.

Bill P., United States, 4 May 2017

Guys, sad to say when I witness to those who say they are believers in Christ Jesus and quote our Lord in what He says about His creation I get very angry reactions. Reactions I would expect from non believers not those who say they believe. I love to witness with all my heart but I will not argue in anger about The Word of God. Sadly I'm sure you guys know, this old age earth is becoming more common among those who say they believe. Even in my own family and it just breaks my heart. I will not return their anger with anger so I pray they will in some way at least hold fast to their faith. You guys do good work, keep it up. See you at the wedding feast....

Steve S., United States, 4 May 2017

Scripture does teach God created a perfection creation in six days, a few thousand years ago, and went imperfect because of Adam's sin.

Isn't the reason for the creation to glorify Jesus and to save his bride—to show that man should and does live by the Word of God? Why all the waste of billions of years involving no bride to save, and really what is there to be saved from if there were no fallen Adam of few thousand years ago. Why is the risen, last Adam of 2,000 years ago necessary again?

Science, our created senses, and our mind support that a Mind created the creation. We also heard from God and know of his workings in history, so we don't have an excuse as to who the triune Creator is.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
5583
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.