Young Earth vs. Old Earth (Rebuttle)

This is written, mostly in response to Jerry Richard’s article:

It is true that if you add up all the generations listed in the genealogies, the Bible seems to suggest the Earth is about 6,000 years old. This point is usually not denied by those who believe in an orthodox and literal interpretation of the Bible.

It is then easy to see why Young Earth Creationists are often bombarded with questions and facts about the distance to stars and how long it would have taken starlight to arrive at Earth if those stars are billions of light years away and the Earth/Universe was only created 6,000 years ago. It is a very good point and a hard argument to counter. All indications and tests make it apparent that the stars in the sky have in fact been there for Billions of years, so you can’t really argue that the distances are wrong.

There have been some other weak arguments put forward in the past suggesting that God just made the stars appear to be old. After all, didn’t he make Adam a full-grown adult without having to grow up? He was born with age, why couldn’t the stars be? Most of these kind of arguments do not hold up tho, and most make it seem like God deceived us. I mean, did that super-nova really happen or not?

If you take a stand on something, you have to be ready to defend it. These issues need to be considered and studied by any Young Earth Creationist (YEC) in my opinion. I’m not quite sure how important these issues are to most other believers, but I believe the Earth to be young, and since the stars were formed after the
Earth on day 4. I have to have an answer for the age of the Universe as well.

Jerry Richard stated in his article:
“Would there even be words in ancient Hebrew God could have used to convey the meaning of what he actually did? Probably not? Then do you think the most likely explanation might be that God provided Moses with an abbreviated description of creation so he could understand it?”

I actually agree with most of that statement, except I don’t think any language has the words to convey something as incomprehensible as the “Creation of Time”.  However, it does not excuse us from seeking out a possible answer.

This is the most current and plausible cosmology that I have found so far:
It is well known that “time” is not constant. Time is affected by motion/speed, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. Time is also affected by Gravity. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity. Light itself also bends in the presence of Gravity.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, depending on speed or gravity. Events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could actually reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well. For this theory we are assuming that the Earth and our Solar System is in the middle of the Universe, and that the Universe started it’s Big Bang formation from somewhere nearby. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Many creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

Keep in mind that the Universe is only at the beginning of being understood. When more information is uncovered and available for study, Creationist counter-arguments will just get better and more precise, along with our understanding.

Jerry Richard asked:
“Do you think the biblical genealogies are necessarily complete and accurate?”

Yes I do, and here’s why:
Matthew primarily wrote his account of the life of Christ for a Jewish audience to show that Jesus was their long-awaited promised Messiah. Thus, Matthew traces the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, demonstrating that Jesus was the seed of Abraham and David. Instead of giving the complete list of names, Matthew deliberately used three groups of fourteen generations (Matthew 1:17; the missing names are found in 1 Chronicles 3:11–12, 2 Kings 23:24, 2 Kings 24:6), as an apparent memory aid to his readers, or perhaps because the Hebrew letters in the name David add up to fourteen.

The list of names that Luke presents from David to Jesus is different from Matthew’s because Luke follows the line of another son of David—Nathan. Most commentators understand that Luke’s genealogy presents the ancestry of Mary. John Gill, a great Bible scholar, stated in his commentary that “Joseph, the son of Heli” meant:

not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to (Matthew 1:16), but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi … till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, … which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews, that “the family of the mother is not called a family.”1

As far as Richard’s other argument for the omission of Cainan:

If you compare the chart in the magazine (AIG’s magazine, I’m assuming) to Scripture, you’ll notice that we have omitted a name given in most of today’s translations of Luke 3:36: Cainan. Further, you’ll notice that this name does not appear in the corresponding genealogies given in Genesis (Genesis 10:24, Genesis 11:12) and 1 Chronicles (1 Chronicles 1:18, 1 Chronicles 1:24). Why?

First, we must be clear that this contradiction is not an error in the original autographs of Scripture, which were God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:15–17), and therefore were inerrant. Instead, this insertion is found in later Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts, which were non-inspired copies of the Hebrew manuscripts.

There are two possible explanations for the addition of Cainan in Luke 3:36. The first is that Cainan was part of the original manuscripts, and Hebrew copyists omitted this name while copying the Genesis and 1 Chronicles passages. However, as Henry Morris has pointed out,3 this is the less likely of the explanations as Hebrew scribes were known for their meticulous copying procedures. Additionally, the name is absent from other ancient versions of the Old Testament (Samaratian, the Vulgate, the oldest versions of the Septuagint, etc.).

The second explanation is more likely: Septuagint scribes copying Luke’s letter inadvertently inserted an extra Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah. Later Septuagint copyists then inserted Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah in the Genesis and 1 Chronicles passages, to conform them to the list given in Luke.

Well, I hope I made some good arguments!? It’s at least something to think about, if you are doubting the Good Book.

Thanks to Jerry Richard for a great article!

Please see http://www.answersingenesis.org for more info on these subjects.

About the Author

Hi Tech Gifts & Gadgets | Remember Ant Farms when you were a Kid? |
Educational Science Toys

Geneology of Adam and Eve, to Jesus

Comments are closed