« The Problem of Cain | Main | God and evil »

January 15, 2007


Jason Fox

Ian, for reasons of copyright I cannot reproduce articles here. The following links will take you the articles which will answer you.

"I throw the whole question into the "Ultimately, we don't know" category." (Ian).

John 8:32




Jason, I recommend Norman Geisler's book "Inerrancy", and Gleason Archer's work as well. Archer is extremely highly qualified in both Divinity and also ancient Middle Eastern languages (fluent in about eight at last count). Both are total inerrantists but who believe the popular interpretation of yom as a 24 hour day in this instance is flawed.


I hold a degree of cynicism and suspicion on much of the dating of the universe, as it is essential to the evolutionary propaganda that billions of years be available for the incomprehensible creation of ordered material that is life.

It seems possible that God took billions of years to create the material universe, BUT personally I reject any idea of death, decay and destruction before the fall of man in Eden. The events of Eden would seem to be 'recent'.

It involves a huge amount of twisting of the scriptures to allow for long ages, so I tend towards a young earth even if it means a degree of 'appearance of age'. Obviously creation of fully formed animals and landscapes would give an appearance of age, but 'planted' fossils and such is NOT a reasonable interpretation.

There are many assumptions made in the various 'dating' methods for rocks, so I believe there will need to be a lot more work done in this area.

I've looked at some anti - creation websites, and while there are some hard questions for creation, the obvious 'bile' against creation, stretched arguments, ignored data, and arrogance leaves me thinking "methinks he doth protest too much".

Ultimately we don't know for sure - yet...

Steve Murray

I've just finished reading Ian's book 'The Divinity Code' which I enjoyed and would recommend to anyone. However the subtle influence of Hugh Ross concerned me. I wonder if this was a precursor for Ian not discussing the origin and impact of sin as recorded in Genesis. Surely a pre-requisite for any discussion of a divinity code?

The disobedience of Adam & Eve are foundational to the Christian Gospel and our need for forgiveness and reconciliation with the Creator.

The problem with any long-age view (apart from those mentioned above) is that it seriously weakens the Genesis account by implying death and suffering in a pre-Adamic world. When Genesis clearly tells us that sin and death was the result of Adam's rebellion.

If science and it's billions of years is right, then Genesis is clearly wrong (even gaps in the geneologies don't allow for that sort of time). Thus the need for a Saviour goes out the window or at least suffers from a serious credibility problem!

May I recommend two books that I found very compelling in addressing both the question of long ages as well as the big bang.

'Refuting Compromise' by Jonathan Sarfati PhD and 'Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered' by John Hartnett & Alex Williams.

Any theological view that incorporates long ages is merely an attempt to accomodate the prevailing scientific paradigm.

Are we willing to seriously consider that the views of fallible humans are more accurate and reliable than God's Word?

Besides, the science surrounding the age of the earth is far from settled! :-)

The Whyman

You said:
"There are gaps in the genealogies recorded in the Bible, and no knowing for certain how much time intervened."

Given the way it genealogies are written ie the age of each father at the birth of the next generation, it would seem that there are in fact no such gaps.

You said:
"The Earth could be around 10,000 years old if, in fact, God had to set the universe up with 13 billion years "on the clock" so to speak, so that the ideal conditions for life existed immediately upon creation"

Are you starting with the assumption that the earth "looks" 13 billion years old? If so doesn't that a presupposition?
Having said that, as someone who 'hold(s) the Bible to be literally true in all that it teaches, affirms and records' wouldn't it be more likely that God made everything mature when He made it-just as it says in Genesis as opposed to it taking billions of years to get that way first..which it doesn't "literally" say?

You said:
"But equally, if yom indeed can refer to an indefinite period of time, as it does in some passages, then a day to God may be 800 million years to us.."

To be precise, Hebrew scholars tell us that whenever a number is used with the Hebrew word for day (yom), it always refers to a literal solar day (no exceptions). Since God is said to have created the universe in six days, literal solar days must be meant.

Shunda barunda

The young earth argument is one of the most tragic distortions of the truth that Christianity has brought forth so far. We are told to discern by the fruit of a ministry and we don't even have to get to the science to realise there is something fundamentally wrong with the young earth position.
This legalistic doctrine is bringing nothing but death and ridicule to the cause of Christ, and for what? to oppose a theory that most people don't care about or even have the slightest understanding of.
Evolution is not the cause of the worlds problems, the sin of man is, time to stop flailing at the branches and put an axe to the root.
legalism is an enemy to the gospel, in all of it's forms.


The age of the universe its so hard to predict, I think that as energy never dissipate, for me the universe has always existed, no beginning and no end.

The Whyman

Sildenafil, the laws of thermodynamics, the 2nd one in particular, refute your claims.

The Whyman

Shunda barunda, please support your assertions with actual evidence.

As it is, you haven't refuted a thing and have only suceeded in knocking down strawmen.

I suggest that you study before commenting.

Shunda barunda

The young earth position is the one starved of evidence.

The best evidence against young earth creation is simply to examine the fruit of it's proponents.

"you shall know them by their fruit"

Steve Murray

How odd...

Jesus references Genesis in his argument against divorce (Mark 10:6) and takes the Pharisees to task for not listening (believing) in "Moses and the Prophets" (Luke 16:31).

Additionally Luke traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam and Paul specifically criticizes a willful ignorance of the creation account in Romans.

This suggests that both Jesus and the writers of the New Testament accepted Genesis as a reliable historical/factual record. Thus it is a reasonable inference to believe that they were proponents of 'Young Earth Creationism'... As indeed were all the early church fathers.

One rather wonders where this leaves Shunda Barunda's rather vacuous argument?

And what is young/old anyway??? If you actually think about it, 6000 years is a really long stretch of history - one that is well beyond my ability to comprehend!

Shunda barunda

Where does it say the earth is 6000 years old? have you even bothered to read the other possibilities of interpreting Genesis?
The problem with Christianity is all this nonsensical crap that confuses the message of Christ to the point that all the world sees is a bunch of irrational religious bigots.
Young earth creation is not an essential doctrine, and when you see the legalistic interpretation of scripture that it's adherents promote, it is not hard to see the 'fruit' and smell it's associated stench.

toe fungus

Its not easy to measure the life of the earth. Earth is so old as we have to study more.

hemorrhoid treatment

Its not the matter to see the earth's age . It is so old but if we not care of it it could be not live more. As the climate change and Global warming More over the increasing population of the earth makes its condition so worst.


No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past.

The comments to this entry are closed.