Is the Earth Only 6,000 Years Old?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Genesis is not a science textbook — phenomenological speech

• The question posed (in the host's frame): anybody who's ever attended science class, at a public high school or college, has been taught the theory of an ancient earth. Many scientists say geological findings prove that the earth is — the numbers vary from source to source, but approximately four and a half billion years old. We also know, of course, that many people in the scientific community are very hostile, to the biblical account of creation. And they argue that the bible teaches what is sometimes referred to as young earth creationism — or the idea that the earth is only about 6 000 years old (as the frame's figures run). But what does the bible really say, about the age of the earth? Does it even really matter? And how should christians respond, to these arguments? The answer: let me say, first of all: the discussion of the ancient earth doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't disturb my faith, at all. And the reason is: the book of genesis was not written as a scientific textbook. It was written to teach theological truths. And everything the bible says is true. But the bible — you have to take what the bible is intending to teach. And the bible is teaching, within a culture. So if the bible taught advanced science, and explained terms in technical ways: the people to whom it was given, for thousands of years, couldn't have understood it. And even today, we might pride ourselves on understanding it. But what if the lord doesn't come for another 200 years? A lot of things we think are true are going to be ridiculously false, or naive. (The host's 'good point' stands fused in the flow.) And then: so if we said the bible's 100 (percent) scientifically fits my ideas now: well, it would be considered untrue, 200 years from now. So if we try to force the bible into a scientific mode, i think we're not reading it according to what's meant to be used. So let me do a very simple thing. The bible speaks in language, that people can understand. That's all about ancient people, as well as modern. And the bible speaks from the point of view of human experience. So let me give a simple example. The bible talks about the sunrise, and the sunset. We do that today. But i would hope that most people today understand: the sun doesn't literally go up and down, in earth's atmosphere. Actually, the sun is far removed from earth's atmosphere. And what we're actually experiencing is the rotation of the earth. Right? And so we see day and night, because the earth is rotating. But if i were to say to you: wasn't that a beautiful sunset? And you say: brother bernard, what a liar. The sun didn't set. The earth rotated. You should be saying: wasn't that a beautiful rotation of the earth, on its axis? I would say: you know what, you're fired. You know — i'm not speaking (in) scientific (terms). You don't say that. Yes — i'm not speaking scientific technicalities. I'm just speaking from human experience. So it's phenomenological speech: how it appears, to humans. So, in generations past — you know, the story of galileo, and the idea that ancient people often thought — you know, many centuries ago, some thought the earth was flat. And the bible talks about the corners of the earth ('the corners of the other', as heard). So does that mean the bible teaches the earth is flat? No. The bible is just speaking from the way it looks. The bible talks about — genesis talks about — heaven kind of like a vault, or a dome. So is the bible trying to teach that, as scientific truth? No. That's the way it looks, to us. It looks like there's a sky up there. And then, when rain comes down with it, there's water up there. But — or, people believed that the sun rotated around the earth, or the universe turned around the earth ('the universal town around the earth', as heard). But of course, science has proven the earth revolves around the sun. So some people thought: well, the bible required us to have those beliefs. But we finally said: you know what, the bible is not trying to teach us details of science. So just because it's describing these things, in terms of human experience: don't limit the bible. And you can see many examples. The book of psalms talks about god taking us under his wings, under his feather. So we don't think god's a giant bird. We understand: this is descriptive speech. So i think, for many reasons, we don't have to take what sounds like — you know, if you added up the years, well, it's got to be six thousand years. But the bible is not trying to teach you, really, even ancient history, in that sense. It's trying to teach you theological truth.

Scriptures: Genesis (book-only); Psalms (book-only)

Young earth, gaps in the genealogies, and apparent age

• Now — so that's the first thing i would say. That: so there — there's atheistic evolution, without god. So that's clearly false. We have to start with: god created everything, the whole universe. And we, as humans: god created humans, in his image. That's absolute. So then you have young earth creationism, or old earth creationism ('old earth creations', as heard). So let's take young earth. And there's a plausibility to it. If you just read the text, and try to add up the numbers, you might get this idea: the earth is six to ten thousand years old. And (are) the numbers based on the genealogies? Is that often how they calculate that? (The host's question stands fused in the flow.) Yes. Yes. But of course, if you study genealogy carefully, you will understand that sometimes (a) genealogy (can) skip (a) generation (once the caption chrome is struck from the sentence). And when it says beget — or was the father of, or the son of — doesn't have to mean literally the immediate ancestor. It could mean even remote. We see this if you take time to study the genealogy of jesus, in matthew: several generations are skipped, on purpose. Can you compare matthew to the old testament? And it's done for a purpose: to have (an) equal number of generations. So you do have to say: you know, even those genealogies — you're over-interpreting them, if you don't allow room for gaps. This wasn't ancestry.com. (The host's 'right right' stands fused.) But okay. But let's just take a simple example. Let's say that adam was immediately created. What do you think — maybe (a) 21 year old adult? (The host's 'sure' stands fused.) Okay, go with that. So let's say he's 20. He looks like a 21 year old. He's an adult, not an infant. And we take him to the doctor, one minute after creation. And the doctor checks him out: well, you've got wisdom teeth. So you got to be at least 21. You're mature, healthy. Perfectly healthy, 100 percent. Your heart is an adult. Your brain is fully developed. Maybe you're a 30 year old, you know? Okay. But really, he's one minute old. So — my (point), you'll use the demonstration (as heard): god could create a human being, that looks 30 years old, and he's really one minute old. Well, if god could do that: god could create an earth, that's one minute old, but looks like a million years old. However, when you think that through — and so that's why young earth creationism could be perfectly fine. You can't disprove that that could be it.

Scriptures: Matthew (book-only)

The ancient-universe evidence, relativity, and the big bang

• But if you think that through: there's so many lines of reasoning, of (an) ancient universe. For example: we can — we study — light travels at 186 000 miles per second (as the figures run). We — scientists — have been able to measure that. Well, we can discover that there are stars, that are many light years away. And there are galaxies, that are hundreds, and thousands, and millions of light years away. Which means: it would have taken them that many years, to get to earth. So the universe would have to be millions, or billions, of years old, for that light to get here. So if god did create everything 10 000 years ago (as the figures run): he would have had to create the light, already on the way. (The host's 'yeah' stands fused.) So it wouldn't have come from a source. He (would have) just created it. And if you look at geology: so, in my area of texas — central texas, the hill country — it's all limestone. Which is created by millions of sea creatures. And so at one time, that had to be a sea. Now it's hills. I mean, i've actually gone out in those hills, and found fossils of sea creatures, embedded in the rock. (The host's 'wow' stands fused.) Well, how many thousands — or scientists sometimes say millions — of years, for those creatures to be in a sea, to have died, been deposited, turned into fossils? And then, through some kind of ancient earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that seabed is now a hilltop. And so you find this fossil, on the top of a hill. Well, that sea creature didn't live, on the top of a hill. And so you're talking about — or the grand canyon: by modern processes, how was that carved out? Or even tree rings. Now, they wouldn't be millions of years old. But thousands of years old. So there's so many (lines). And then of course, radioactive decay. We could go on, and on. So you could either say: god just created this, with the illusion ('accreted this with the illusion', as heard), which is possible. But it does cause some question: would god create something, that seems to be faked? So, like oil: they say it took millions of years, for that oil to form. Coal: it was actually ancient plants, that (were) crushed under the earth, under immense pressure. It would take millions of years. Diamonds: formed (from) carbon, under millions of years. So god could have just created the oil, without any plants and animals, as predecessors. But the question becomes: you know, would god really create a whole thing, that's like fake, or imaginary? Or, you know what? And of course, he can do what he wants to do. He's a god of miracles. But it does cause a little bit (of) unease, to me: that everything that appears to be, is not. Of course, you could — some young earth creationists ('creations', as heard) will dispute all those points. But then we have to become expert scientists: in geology, biology, astronomy. I mean, and if we had time, we could sit down, and talk about all those. But i do think there's an easier way, to look at it. And here's how i look at it. Einstein's theory of relativity says: that as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. So if you're actually going at the speed of light, there's no passage of time. That — and this is counter-intuitive. But scientists have demonstrated it's true. The way the universe works is: there's this relationship between, you know, time and speed. And so time is relative, to the observer. So an observer (in) one place can think of time passing, in a certain time. But an observer that's moving would think it is (a) shorter time. And if an observer is moving at the speed of light, he would say: there's no time. So, to me, that gives me a philosophical opportunity, to say: look, when god created the universe (in) six days: well, from his perspective, it was six days. Now, it's not exactly like our days. Because our days are measured by the sun. Well, god was counting days, before there was a sun ('a son', as heard, here and below). So he was doing something different, than depending on the sun, to tell him what time it was. So from god's perspective, he could say — imagine god's traveling pretty much (at) the speed of light, if he wants to — so it could be actually six 24-hour days, if you were sitting along with god, with (a) time clock. But from our perspective, it could be billions of years. So i don't see that there's any problem, in saying: from god's perspective — and i look at it like: let's say you planted a seed. If you could take a video, or time lapse pictures, of a seed. And then it roots go down. And then those roots start cracking rock. And (a) tree goes up. And it becomes a mighty, magnificent sequoia, of hundreds of feet. If you did a video of that, it would look like a miracle. Here's this — it would look like a monster movie, or something. Here, here's this plant, just, you know, developing. Well, maybe genesis is that video sequence. (The host's 'yeah' stands fused.) Here's what happened. But i think it's a mistake, to try to put it into science. I do believe it's profoundly consistent, with science. Because the prevailing scientific theory is: that the universe started with the big bang. There was nothing. And they can't explain it. They can't explain what was before that. If there was no time, so there's nothing before that. No way to describe it. It's impossible for humans to comprehend. But suddenly there was this infinitesimal point, that exploded. And caused our known explosion of energy, that all of our known universe came out of. Well, if you were writing thousands of years ago, and god actually showed you the big bang: how would you describe it, in ancient terms? Well: in the beginning, god said, let there be light. And there was light. (The host's 'yeah' stands fused.) Boom. I mean, that, to me, is a description of the big bang. And the — what makes me so interested in that ('and the wreath what makes me...', as the words run at the turn): until the 20th century, no humans described the universe, that way. So it's like: we spent all this time. And then people thought there might be an eternal universe. Or that's been disproven. So really, god's word, saying there was a beginning, and it began with an explosion of light, or energy: it's profoundly true. The only thing we have to say is: god is the author of that. So, to my mind, there really is no problem, saying: the universe is billions of years old. Or even, the earth is billions of years old. I believe that's compatible, with the discussion (in) genesis.

The resources, and the soul-winning close

• Now, if you want to do some research: there's a book by gerald rao (the name as heard; he spells it r-a-w), i think he's the editor. It's called mapping the origins debate: six models. So i think he has young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and various variations. So you can look at that. John collins has a very good book — (its title names the first four chapters of genesis) — which he goes through (those chapters), discuss(ing) it theologically. But also discusses: how would it relate to modern science? From a biblical — conservative biblical — perspective. And then john lennox — l-e-n-n-o-x — (his book on) seven days that divide the world. So he also goes through the seven days — you know, the six days of creation, plus the seventh day of rest — and describes it theologically, but also how it is compatible, with the discussions of science. I will also add that, you know, the reason why a lot of people fight against old earth is: they think it's a concession to evolutionism. Well, we — that's another great discussion, of how did god actually create. But you don't have to buy into that. And certainly, i would reject any form of atheistic evolution. But even theistic evolution: that seems to relegate god to the sidelines, and just goes through evolution. There's a good book — it's rather in-depth — but it's (edited by) j. p. moreland ('jpmorland m-o-r-e-l-a-n-d', as the name and spelling run), it's called theistic evolution. But it's actually a critique of theistic evolution, from a conservative christian perspective. Saying — just trying to say evolution answers everything — it has a very extensive explanation, by many authors, from a theological, scientific perspective, to say that's inadequate. But i do want to summarize, with this: because when you're trying to win souls, i don't think we have to fight this battle. I'll give you an example. I had a businessman come to me, when i was a pastor. He says: you know, he was very touched by our services, and felt the presence of god. But he said: i can't believe this, because i believe in evolution. I said: look, we could sit down, and i could give you all the flaws. I'll give you books to read. But really, that doesn't really matter right now. What you need to understand is: god is a creator. And all the rest is details ('all the dress is details', as heard). He says: well, how can i believe (what) the bible says? (I said:) the bible is not trying to teach on evolution, or age of the earth. It's not trying to teach those things. It's trying to teach that god is a creator. That's what you have to understand. But let me give you this. The bible says that humans are sinners. It's the only book of philosophy, or religion ('or rich or religion', as heard), that basically says: the essential problem with humans — we're sinners. Every other book tries to tell you how you can improve yourself: through meditation, through good works, through believing in some deity. You can improve yourself. The bible says: you can't improve yourself. You need a savior, jesus christ. But you know what: that's a universal truth. G. k. chesterton ('chesterson', as heard) said: the one doctrine of the bible, that can be empirically proved, is: all have sinned. Every human being knows — even if they don't believe in the bible — they know they have violated their own conscience, what they said was right and wrong. They violate (it). They've lied. They've cheated. They've stolen. Every human being, if you're honest, you know that you've sinned. Well, of all the books, and religions, and philosophies, of the world: only the bible is bold enough, and honest enough, to say: your root problem is your sin ('your center', as heard). Well, if the bible tells us the truth, on the most fundamental truth of our lives — and nobody else will — then we can trust the bible, when it talks about creation, which nobody's seen. Or when it talks about the life to come, which nobody's been there. We trust it, on those extremes. Because we know it's telling the truth. And so, if you will repent, and you'll be baptized in jesus' name, you'll receive the holy ghost: you will experience the truth of the bible, for yourself. Then that will give you confidence, to go back and say: genesis is right. God created the universe. And whatever the details, we know that fundamentally we need to accept god, as our creator. (The host's thanks for the resources stands verbatim-only before the outro.)

Scripture index: Genesis (book-only); Psalms (book-only); Matthew (book-only).