As a preliminary statement, I would like to say that I think old vs. new earth is a fruitless debate that has sidetracked much of evangelicalism from other doctrines (like the infallibility of Scripture) that are far more important. In short, I don’t think there is enough data in the bible to make a conclusion one way or the other based on Biblical data alone. I don’t think the age of the earth is something the Bible was intended to answer and I think asking that question of it is an effort in futility at best.
- If Genesis is supposed to be a detailed account of the creation (rather than recreation) of the world, where did the water come from we find the Spirit of God hovering over?
- As far as God making something look old; How do you get past the deception inherent in such a position?
- As far as science goes I’ll bring in a good quote from Galileo Galilei, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same Lord who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use. Why mistrust science when the age of the earth:
- is not directly addressed in Scripture and
- poses no threat to any major doctrine?
There are at least two reliable sources that date the age of the earth past 10,000 years which is commonly held as the threshold of “young” earth proponents which are the redshift (specifically the cosmological redshift) and background radiation. Both of which measure the age of the universe in the billions of years.
- If the Earth is, indeed, young. And if it really matters that we believe that in order to “truly believe the Bible”, how come the Jews didn’t pass that down in their traditions? Why did we wait for Ussher, a Catholic bishop in the 16th century, to add up the genealogies and tell us that? Why did it never occur to anyone before the 16th century to date the age of the earth based on the genealogies in the Bible? Could it be that it just wasn’t that important?