“How old is the earth?”On the surface, this five-word question looks very straightforward, requiring just a simple numerical answer. But in reality, for Christians at least, there are a bunch of other questions (or assumptions) that line up behind the question. It ends up being a very complex question, or series of questions.
These “background” questions would include, but are not limited to:
• Does Scripture provide an answer on how old the earth is?
• Does the Bible even intend to address the question?
• Is there one correct “Christian” viewpoint on the question of the age of the earth?
• Shouldn’t we read the Bible literally if we believe it is the Word of God?
To start our discussion, I think it’s helpful to clarify that the question of the age of the earth is entirely separate from the creation versus evolution debate. Just because evolutionists happen to believe in an old earth does does not mean the converse is true: i.e., that everyone who believes in an old earth is therefore an evolutionist. That is a non-sequitur. In fact, many creationists (particularly folks who focus on the “Intelligent Design” discussion) believe that the scientific evidence indicates that God created everything with great complexity, and that life did not evolve. But they also believe the scientific evidence indicates that the universe, and the earth, are rather old. Understanding that the issues are separate is important because many Christians do not want to start on the slippery slope towards evolution. They tend to dig their toes in out of fear that even entertaining the thought the earth might be older than, say, 10,000 years is starting them on the downward slide towards evolutionism. But the one does not necessitate the other.
In a similar vein, some conservative Christians tend to shy away from even contemplating that the earth might be old because they have been told that it is somehow “unchristian” or “unbiblical” to do so. “If you really want to honor God’s Word,” the argument goes, “you have to take it literally. And if you don’t take God’s Word literally, it means you have a low view of Scripture and are watering it down and capitulating to the culture and becoming worldly!”
The truth is, we have the highest view of Scripture and divine authorship when we let Scripture speak on its own terms. Imposing one’s own categories or preferences or biases on Scripture actually does the opposite of honoring it—it dishonors it. Making Scripture say something that it does not intend to say dishonors the Word of God and fashions it into an image of our own imagination.
This means that we must take the Bible literally when it intends us to take it literally. And we allow for figures of speech and variety of literary genres and intents when that’s what the author or speaker intends and what the text calls for.
For example, saying “I only take the Bible literally” results in absurdity when the psalmist says in 17:8: “Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings.” To take the Bible literally at that point is to make it say something not just absurd, but patently untrue. One would never claim on the basis of this verse that the psalmist wants to be kept as a literal apple (Gala or Granny Smith?) in God’s literal, physical eye (is He blue-eyed or brown?). No, this is a poetic expression of David’s desire that God’s favor and affection would continue to shine on David. Interpreting this verse as a figure of speech, and not literally, is the correct, God-honoring way to interpret it and to arrive at truth. Similarly, “hide me in the shadow of your wings” taken literally results in a claim that God is a cosmic chicken.
On the other hand, when Genesis 2:25 says, “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame,” we have no reason to not take it literally. The ‘laws’ of literature and hermeneutics (interpretation) would give us every reason to understand the text to be speaking about a literal man and woman who are married (and that these words are not figurative code for a Martian and a tadpole). We understand “they were both naked” to mean precisely and literally that – they had no clothes, and if the weather patterns of the Garden were like a Wisconsin winter, it would have been a sorry sight indeed.
A recent example of the dangers of making Scripture say something it never intended to is Harold Camping’s numerology. Camping “discovered” all kinds of esoteric patterns in Scripture giving him unique insight into the date of Jesus’ return on May 21, 2011. Millions of dollars were spent by the faithful warning the world of impending doom. When May 21 came and went, and the world mocked, Harold revised his calculations and reset the date to October 21, 2011. The fact that I’m writing this and you are reading this says very clearly that he got it horribly wrong. The reality is Scripture was never intended to be read that way. Neither God nor the human authors intended it as a number-crunching book with secret codes.
So it's very important that on the one hand, we don't make Scripture say less than it intends to. And, on the other, that we don't make it say more than it intends to.
This brings us back to the question of the age of the earth: Does the Bible address the subject? Does it even intend to?
We’ll continue the discussion in the next post.
