Daniel, I too, will be very interested to see this debate. I hope that the tone is charitable and constructive.

I would like to ask you a question regarding your posting on the debate.

I want to be very up front and state that I am an old earth creationist. I also am firmly committed to Scripture's complete inerrancy, infallibility and sufficiency.

When you ask the question "If the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth" aren't you canonizing the young earth interpretation? While I would affirm that God's revelation is fully inspired and infallible, I would be very hesitant to take such a dogmatic stance on Genesis 1 and its days (Hebrew: yom). Revelation is inspired but are you sure that your interpretation is? The Holy Spirit is able to guide us into all truth (John 16:13-15) but I am questioning whether or not the clarity you accept in your understanding of Genesis 1 is merited.

I certainly appreciate your zeal for defending God's word. I very much applaud you for that. We are allies in this battle.

I hope that those in the young earth camp, might at least acknowledge that there are many "old earthers" who hold to their understanding of God's creation based on the firm conviction that the bible strongly supports their position. We have not accepted old earth creationism as a concession to evolutionary biology's perceive triumph. To the contrary, the old-earthers I know embrace it because they believe it to be true.

If strong evidence is forthcoming from the young earth camp, I would happily join my Christian brothers and sisters who are already in this group. However, many have perceived the young earth evidences to be lacking. And I am not just talking about those who don't hold the position. (see John Mark Reynold's article in Zondervan's counterpoint series the addresses the subject of the Ross-Ham debate)

One of my primary concerns is that if the young earth position does not present better arguments and evidence that conservative Christianity as a whole will be thought to be a Christian form of existentialism that is divorced from the objective world we all live in.

- Chip Lambert

Chip Lambert:

I appreciate you taking the time address this subject, and I hope I can answer you wisely. Thank you for vouching for the sincerity of many old-earth creationists. I certainly do not doubt yours.

You've not convinced me to change my position on the age of the earth, and I believe the reasons I stated above still apply. Your concern about canonizing an interpretation of Scripture seems to me to be faulty for the following reason: Every Scriptural passage must be interpreted, however important or minor the passage may be. For example, Gospels are interpreted by many people to be books written or revised long after the life of Jesus, not necessarily containing historical record as much as the cultic teachings of "The Way." Jesus' death is interpreted to be a coma. Are you canonizing your own interpretation if you reject these views? Actually not, because those views have already been canonized by teachings passed on by the Apostles; the book of Genesis is no different--it also was accepted by Jesus and the Apostles to be historical.

I'm sure you consider the old-earth/young-earth issue to be of much less importance than the life of Christ, but I would consider it to be of utmost importance. The implications of a literal, 6-day creation ex nihilo are enormous, scientifically, philosophically, theologically.

As I said in my post, I believe the weight of Scriptural evidence falls overwhelmingly on the side of a young earth. In fact, I find no evidence at all in the Bible that indicates millions of years of history. Perhaps I'm ignorant of some things, and if so I, like you, will gladly "switch camps." But I've never once heard a sound argument made from Scripture that allows old-earth creationism.

Like you, I don't want anyone to think Christianity is divorced from reality. But at the same time Christianity makes some very bold claims that the modern scientific establishment has chosen to reject, whether or not those claims are true. I think a young earth is one of these.

Please let me know if I've misunderstood you.

Sincerely,
Daniel

The "young earth/old earth" is devisive and harmful to Christianity, and I agree with Ankerberg that it would be more advantagious for creationists (whether young earth or old earth) to join together against secular humanism/naturalistic evolution than to expend energies debating within the Christian community.

The "old earth" view is nothing new; several early church fathers argued against 24-hour creation days. In more recent times, noted reformed theologians believed in the old-earth "day-age" view, including Charles Hodge, AA Hodge, Benjamin Warfield, GT Shedd, and J Gresham Machen. These men wrote prior to the establishment of Darwinian evolution. They were not "accomodating the evolutionary predispositions that dominate science."

Other conservative, well-respected theologians who supported "old earth" were RA Torrey (Editor, The Fundamentals, 1907-1917), Edward J Young (Prof Emeritus, WTS, described as "the epitomy of conservative exegetical orthodoxy"), R Laird Harris (co-author of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament), Francis Schaeffer (founder of the L'Abri Fellowship), and James Montgomergy Boice (Chairman, International Council on Biblical Inerrancy). These are not theological lightweights and all believed in literal, inerrant interpretation of Scripture.

You imply that old earth creationists take the creation week "metaphorically." Quite to the contrary! We take it very literally. You also comment that "the old earth model easily accomodates evolutionary prepositions." It is the opinion of many "old earthers" that science provides strong evidences for God's ex nihilo creation.

Here is what "old earth" believes:

(1) God created (bara) the "heavens and the earth" (hashamayim we ha'erets) ex nihilo, through the mechanism of the "big bang." Numerous Hebrew scholars attest that the Hebrew phrase "heavens and the earth" means the entire universe -- all elements, atoms, & molecules needed to make the physical universe comprised of planets, stars, moons, nebulae, etc. Old earth creationists believe that God miraculously created (bara) the universe ex nihilo -- from no pre-existing matter (Gen 1:1, Col 1:16, Hebrews 11:13). The universe did not just "pop into existence," as naturalists claim.

(2) God created all life, from the very earliest life on planet earth some 3.8 billion years ago to the most advanced. The evidence for life on earth directly after the Hadean ("Hades") era (4.4BYA to 3.8BYA) demands an Intelligent Designer -- the God of the Bible. There was no time for non-living organic chemicals to "evolve" into living organisms. Many scientists understand the impossibility of the "evolution" of metabolically and informationally complex life, and now embrace "panspermia" -- an evolutionary cop-out, which demonstrates the degree of their madness to keep God out of the picture.

Do "old earth" creationists accomodate evolution? The late Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1966, made the following comment about a book co-authored by old earth creationist Hugh Ross: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading 'Origins of Life'. . . it is clear that evolution could not have occured." The comment speaks for itself.

(3) God created advanced life on earth. The Cambrian Explosion, which is revealed in the fossil record approximately 543 million years ago, clearly documents the sudden and simultaneous creation of some 70 morphologically complex animal phyla with unique body plans, which lead up to the creation of advanced life described in Gen 1:20-25 and God's creation of Adam, the literal first man, made in God's image (Gen 1:26). Evidences from science support the Biblical creation model.


Today's "young earth/old earth" debate is reminiscent of the Galileo debate in the 1500's, where the Church dogmatically embraced geocentrism (based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture), while scientist Galileo proposed heliocentrism. Eventually it was accepted that heliocentrism was harmonious with Scripture. I pray for a similar resolution of today's "young earth/old earth" controversy, so we can all be united against atheistic secular humanism, which is ravaging our nation. In that regard, I hope that the upcoming Ham/Lisle/Ross/Kaiser debate will smooth the ruffled feathers of all those concerned.

Jon Greene

Jon Greene:

I disagree that this debate is harmful to Christianity; in fact I think it's essential. When contrary teachings arise in the church (especially when they break with traditional views) it is necessary for us to carefully study--in faith--the issues involved and debate those who disagree. When error (whichever side of this debate represents it) arises, God is glorified by the truth shining even brighter. Time will indeed tell on which side the truth lies, and I hope soon.

Thanks for your overview of old earth theory. It will benefit all readers.

Daniel JD

Daniel,

Thanks for the reply and the thought you've devoted to this subject. I also appreciate your tone and motives.

Although the age of the earth and universe isn't a subject I'm going to devote much time to going forward, I always appreciate it when issues like this cause belivers to turn back to Scripture and ask the question, "What does the Bible really say?" Down through church history doctrinal challenges (from within and from outside - core and peripheral doctrines) have always focused the attention of God's people back to the word to determine what it says.

I hope this issue will resolve itself in the years to come. Whether it does or not, I hope both young and old earth belivers benefit from this in-house debate and move closer to the truth.

Bravo on blog, too. You're doing some great work!

- Chip Lambert