180 — How Can It Be Old? (and a bit about warfare)
I get questions like this quite often due to my science background (and my continuing work in science) and my work as a minister. This time, I will go a bit further in my answer than I normally do… and, by so doing, I am sure that I will set the cat amongst the pigeons.
You say you are a scientist and you say you are a Christian. You also claim to believe that God made the world in six days. How can you believe the world was created in 4004BC when everything we can measure in the universe, with carbon dating, etc. show us that the universe is billions of years old and, in fact, the light we see from some stars took millions of years to get here (and so the stars themselves might have already burned out long ago)? How can you be consistent here?
First of all, I always love it when someone says “you claim to…” I can remember a man from the far right of our religious tribe who liked to challenge me to debates, write against me in his little publication, etc. He once called my home and Kami answered. He said, “Is this Patrick Mead’s supposed wife?” Sheesh.
Anyhoo, there are two ways to look at creation that work for me. I don’t believe in billions of years of mindless or guided evolution — so no Darwin or Intelligent Design for me. There are just too many problems with those views and I would be happy to discuss them if enough questioners ask me to. Here are the two ways I can read the creation account and stay true to my beliefs and what I understand about science.
Both ways I read this account, I see the six days as literal days. They are defined that way in the writing (and evening and morning, day one..) and I have no problem with that. Then how can the universe seem so old? The same way that Adam seemed all grown up when he was really just a few hours old. The Bible says that God made the universe all grown up — pre-aged for our convenience. Apple trees, as an example, were mature and had apples on them ready to drop and reproduce. Which came first? we are asked, the chicken or the egg? According to scripture, “a chicken with an egg in it.”
How do we have light coming from stars so far away? Because God created the light along with the stars. Why do we have layers of rock formations? If we are honest, those things are not nearly as cut and dried as they appear in geology textbooks. In fact, the geological column exists nowhere outside of geology textbooks! No place on earth has more than half of the sections/eras and even they are “out of order” so let’s not overplay the geology card. And radiometric dating? There are lots of problems with that (and I can write more if you are interested). Still, if the world and universe were made “ready to use” then resources would be piled up and available. The Flood answers most of the rest of the questions we might have about fossils, extinctions, continental drift, etc.
The other way of reading the creation account that works for me is called — by Gregory Boyd in his excellent, if provocative, book God at War — Restoration Creation. In Boyd’s signature style (tons of scripture, slowly building a solid theological base before moving on to the next point), he argues that the fall of Satan and his angels occurred a long time before our creation. When we enter the story in Genesis One, we find the creation in chaos. In typical OT style, the writer depicts that chaos as stormy seas. This is critical to Boyd’s argument. Most mentions of demonic activity in the OT, whether cosmic, national, or personal, are depicted as waves, storms, deep waters, sinking into the depths, roaring thunder, etc. Leviathan, Rahab, dragons, and gods such as Baal are all depicted as being evil forces behind the storms of our lives (physical, spiritual, and metaphysical). They are also depicted as being in combat with God.
In Daniel 10, Daniel prayed for 21 days straight before the angel appeared before him. He told Daniel that he had left to come to him as soon as Daniel began to pray but that he was resisted by the demons that controlled that nation. Had Michael not come to reinforce their battle, this angel could not have come and spoken to Daniel. And it still took him nearly three weeks to get there. While they talked, other angels show up for the express purpose of guarding the rivers around them — another way of saying they were guarding against demonic incursions and disruptions.
God moves mightily in Genesis and drives back the chaotic seas, establishing dry land. He plants a garden in the middle of His creation and places a man there to care for it and guard it. Yes, the word in 2:15 that is usually translated “dress” or “care for” is the same word used for the action of the fiery cherubs in 3:24 who used their swords to “guard” the garden against those forces outside that wanted in. That was Adam’s failure. He didn’t guard the territory God gave him but, instead, allowed the serpent in.
In Boyd’s view, we come upon the story of this battle long, long after it had been engaged and God’s creation thrown into chaos. Millions and billions of years wouldn’t be too long for this battle for it still continues to this very day. For those who react knee jerk style and say that God would never have been pushed back so far as to lose almost everything before starting all over with the creation of Adam and Eve, I would remind them of the days of Noah when He had only one guy left and the days of Abram when, technically, He didn’t really have even him for the first several years!
To Boyd, this explains the chaos and the vast graveyards of fossils we find even better than does the Flood. It also explains why man was told to “subdue the earth.” We weren’t told to strip mine it! We were being told to fight against the evil forces that wanted to take it back. It also makes Genesis 1:26 more dramatic as God countermoves by saying “let us make man in our image and after our likeness” using the plural. I believe he was talking not only to Jesus and the Holy Spirit but also the righteous angels, veterans of a long war.
This reading removes any seeming conflict between science and scripture. That is something to consider. It allows us to harmonize all the warfare passages in scripture — and there are a ton of them. (While we usually talk about the Fall of Man, scripture rarely mentions it. Instead, scripture spends its time talking about our enemy and the forces arrayed against us. It warns us to watch, sleep not, stay with the group, put our armor on, and stay alert)
When we give our money, time, and lives to the service of God, we are redeeming the world one person, one acre, at a time. Regardless of how you read Genesis, this is certainly our purpose on this planet. And, we are told, at the end of this war, we will be rulers over many things.
For those who are now worried about this warfare motif, I warn you not to swing to the extremes noted by C.S. Lewis — ignoring the devil or focusing on him too much. You might be wondering why God doesn’t just end this thing here and now. Let me give you a very imperfect illustration. Once upon a time, the most advanced nation on earth and the greatest, best equipped, and best trained military on earth was that from the United Kingdom. England ruled the waves! And yet… American farmers defeated them and, in the early 1900s, Irish peasants did the same. The US military is now the best trained and best equipped military on the planet and yet small groups of Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. can bring them much grief and, if the political will does not hold, defeat. Could the US defeat these nations? Sure! But we would have to go nuclear and turn entire nations into blasted glass by dropping bombs that melted the sand and turned those nations into radioactive no-go areas for hundreds of years.
We are, understandably, quite reluctant to do that. We want to try everything else first. So does God. One day, He will exercise His own version of the nuclear option. Until then, we are at war and should take all due precautions.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I read God at War (at your suggestion – thanks!), and I can see Boyd’s interpretation. The book as a whole really rang true, and it has sparked further study for me. One day we’ll know a little better about how things were done.
I also have no problem with the creation of a mature universe. God can do what he wants. Such a thing is by no means beyond him, and frankly a lot of what we have been told is proof of an ancient earth is manufactured to fit the theory of evolution.
You didn’t adress the 4004 B.C. thing, which is a canard at best.
Also, it seems to me that you are equating intelligent design with directed evolution. I suppose there are those who see them as the same thing, but I think the more prevalent view of intelligent design is that creatures show great evidence of embedded information (like DNA), and thus must have been created by an intelligence. The other corollary of that is that the similarities between animal species (which isn’t as great as it’s made out to be) is the result of design and creation by the same designer.
I’m just not sure it’s valid to equate ID and directed evolution. Comment?
You make a valid point. I think most people would still equate directed evolution and intelligent design since both of them require long eons of time to pass and would have several semi-human beings showing up before Adam and Eve. I could be wrong. I know many ID people would disagree, but that is the perception they give off. As for 4004 BC, it was calculated on very flawed premises by a well intentioned man. That is the best one can say about it.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Well that certainly is one way to explain the unexplainable difference between science and religion. I don’t understand why we don’t use that example and send the Girl scouts to subdue the troubled Mideast. Makes about as much sense as sending frail fallible humans to recapture and redeem a fallen earth.I believe that was Jesus’ job. as Jesus said God could send ten thousand warrior angels, probably had more in reserve. Nope that don’t work for me, but that is just me. I have heard that God recycled another planet, and didn’t bother to pick out the bones. Hummm could be, it makes more sense to me than the one about human presents, scaring the demons away. Some people say he plans to recycle it again. Maybe the earth is liken to Fort Hood a training ground for the big battle to come, who knows, we might get that Infantry badge yet. (foot soldier)
Some of those Girl Scouts are pretty tough, Laymond…
May 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Hmmm . . . I can’t comment on a comment here like I can on your other blog, Patrick.
Let me frame it this way: directed evolution demands intelligent design, but intelligent design does not demand directed evolution, long eons of time, or semi-human beings before Adam and Eve. From my reading, ID doesn’t even lean that way.
Of course, we have lots of semi-human beings after Adam and Eve . . .
May 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Well, now I’m going to buy another Greg Boyd book.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I’m with Greg…off to buy another book. Definitely a thought-provoking post, Patrick. Thanks.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Laymond needs to see the front page of the NY times online this morning. Apparently we are arming the scouts for war. But the scripture makes it plain that we are warriors in a fight against darkness. Fair or not we’re in for the long haul. Guess we have to rely on that whole “God’s strength in our weakness” thing.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Laymond writes:
Makes about as much sense as sending frail fallible humans to recapture and redeem a fallen earth. I believe that was Jesus’ job.
Nick here:
Now I’m thoroughly confused. You don’t believe the doctrine of the Trinity. You do not believe Jesus was divine. So what, praytell, is the difference between Jesus and “frail fallible humans” if he isn’t divine, isn’t an angel, and is human?
May 14th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Patrick,
God At War has been in my reading queue since the first time I read about it in one of your blogs. Looks like I need to bump it forward.
nick
May 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I just went to Amazon.com to get God at War. They have one copy … used … for $47.88. Yikes! I’ll have to wait until they get some more used copies on hand!
May 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Whoa! That’s a ridiculous price, Greg.
$25 at Barnes and Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/God-at-War/Gregory-A-Boyd/e/9780830818853/?itm=3
May 14th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Umm, I just checked on Amazon and it says $16.50
http://www.amazon.com/God-War-Bible-Spiritual-Conflict/dp/0830818855
eBay has several of them running from $3 to $16.99
May 15th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Patric, I know you have a propensity to disallow comments to others or about other commenters, I thought I would risk getting one through since Nick seemed to question my knowledge of scripture which seems to say Jesus did not come to earth as deity, or former deity. Nick please explain these two statements, which by the way,I did nor formulate of my own knowledge.
Phil:2:9: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Heb:1:4: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
If Jesus was God would he not already be higher than his creation (angels)?
We really do get it, Laymond. When it comes to the nature of God and the idea of the Trinity, you are not convinceable. The scriptures you quoted have been read by everyone who believes different from you and they don’t see them as saying anything to bolster your arguments. That means nothing to you. We get that. Let’s all be friends, shall we?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Patrick, sorry I docked you one K so here is an extra one to do with as you wish
K
May 15th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Oh, my, Patrick. Your theory is just as off the map as I mine. And I think I like it just as much!
May 15th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Patrick, if you look back to comment #7 you will see I was only answering a question put to me by my brother and good friend Nick Gill, in my “frail fallible human” way to be sure.
Patrick, you probably do “really get it” But Nick said “Now I’m thoroughly confused.”
I was only trying to clear up some confusion for a brother.
Like I said I should have known better
May 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Laymond,
I didn’t ask anything about what you think about the Trinity. I’m not trying to convince you of it, either.
I an confused because you stated a difference between “frail, fallible humans” and Jesus — a difference you’ve denied many many times.
Patrick, please delete this if you’d rather I not continue
May 15th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Interesting stuff.
Jesus also turned water into wine … aged wine at that. I don’t get too hung up on the old earth vs. young earth stuff. God created. The end.
I may have to pick up that book you’re talking about though.
Posting this comment on Patrick Mead’s supposed blog.
Okay… THAT was funny!
May 16th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Hi Wes,
That would be a good example (Jesus creating the wine), except that some believe that it was “good” wine meaning it was fresh and had not fermented yet. Aged wine would have an intoxicating effect. Jesus would not have promoted sin (drunkenness) according to this position.
Also, another argument for an older earth is that it would be against God’s nature to deceive us by creating fossils and the appearance of an aged earth, when in fact the reality was that it is much younger.
I have not committed to either opinion on the age of earth, because I simply not fully convinced by either side. I don’t worry about it much since it isn’t a salvation issue, but it is fun to ponder.
Patrick’s explanation is one of the best I have heard for the young earth case. It does make logical sense that God would provide his creation with resources and if it is against God’s nature to create the appearance of age how do we explain Adam and Eve being created fully grown?
The wine was fermented. No question. See the comment above. As for fossils, they weren’t created to fool us! They are the remnants of mass extinctions caused either by a pre-Genesis 1:2 war or the Flood.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Wayne – you clearly need to drink some booze, brother.
Just kidding
Seriously though, the “good stuff” back then was aged. The Greek word used for wine indicates that it was an intoxicant, and the vast majority of commentators agree that the wine was aged. Those that don’t are a very small minority – most of whom believe drinking alcohol of any kind is a sin.
Jesus’ turning water into wine wasn’t an endorsement for anyone to get hammered (some may have, but not because He wanted them to) – the wine that wasn’t consumed that night would have been used for a long time into the future (possibly at other weddings, festivals, etc).
May 16th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Wes, I agree with your understanding that the wine itself likely could intoxicate, but age could be a factor of what was considered good at that time. Fresh might have been good versus aged for the wedding (I don’ know). I venture it would depend upon whom you asked, those interested in the intoxicating benefit would choose the aged over the freshly made since it would have had time to ferment. I don’t believe alcohol itself is a sin, but the results of abusing alcohol clearly is a sin. Some of those who abstain simply do not wish to influence others to sin. I really don’t have a position or trying to promote/defend a certain point of view, but do like to discuss the different points of view. I don’t know what kind of wine Jesus created, but I am sure he could explain to us how what he created was not sinful.
I will add that to my list of questions to ask.
Thanks for the conversation!
May 16th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I would like to say from a science perspective that the earth is not old! Nor can one say in appearance. A persons wrinkled face we can determine they are older than we but we cannot say how old they are. We have to have the actual evidence to show whether that statement is actualy true. The evidence is that the earth is not old. Carbon dating methods are extremely flawed as well as all decay dating methods which operate on the same principle.
Just for an example the spiral galaxies, if the universe was 14.5 billion years old the arms of the galaxies would have collapsed on them selves long ago. I can put mud on new shoes but it doesnt prove they are old, just dirty.
I cannot not say the earth is old by such a non scientific statement as it looks old. Does it? How do you determine that? And even from ones perspective if it did appear old to them for some reason it still says nothng nor does it determine its oldnest, if thats a word. Walking five miles for me is nothing but for an ant its perhaps a lifes journey. If it appears old then how come there is still C-14 in all dinosaur bones. This would not be an appearance of being old. Just cause there is dirt on my tennis shoes means nothing I have the receipt that I bought them yesterday, or being that it was yesterday does that mean they are now old. How long does it take for the earth to look to old, how do you determine this. this is not science, The word science actualy means is just – to know. To know gives us the real evidence and the evidence shows that it is not old not even from our perspective of what an old earth is.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Patrick have you ever heard of the thought /theory or what ever you want to call it. That at the time Lucifer was coming into his pridful state, and before God created us, that Lucifer accused God of forcing His creation to follow God without a true free will. And because of this God created us and the earth and its realms /universe and cast Lucifer out of heaven down to earth as a means of oppositon and a true choice making scenario of free will. Kind of like the sub scenario of Job. Where Lucifer accused God in a sense that Job wasnt being able to make his own free choice because he was protected and babied. God said have you considered my servent Job? Right after God said to Lucifer when he came to God, what do you want now?
I think lucifer was cast to the earth at the same time of creation, wouldnt he have had to be? Or sometime shortly after. Since we do know he was here speaking to Eve in a serpent fashion. (which doesnt have to mean a snake as so many make light of, the word serpent could mean anything as a serpenTINE fashion, could be considered a serpent.) But not that, that actualy matters.
Was Christ speaking of the fact that He said He saw satan and his followers cast down to earth at the resurection or from the begining at creation.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Spartan, could you please point me to where you found this in the bible? where Christ said (He saw Satan and his followers cast down to earth).
Look at Luke 10:18 and all of Revelation 12.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Lk:10:18: And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Rv:12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
In Lk.10 I don’t see any reference to “followers or earth”
And I was under the impression that Revelation was a message from God in the form of a vision to John, in other words John was the one who said he saw.
A distinction without a difference, Laymond.
May 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Lk:10:18: And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
( no context)
Patrick is it not a baffling thing to you that there are so many things found in Luke’s writings That are not found elsewhere in the other gospel writers words? It sounds to me that Luke might have the propensity to embellish, just a mite. I will give two other examples.
Luke 22:19——- “this do in remembrance of me”
Luke 3:22 —–”in a bodily shape of a dove”
If Luke’s account is accurate, and John’s account is also correct, would not this bird abode on Jesus his entire stay here.? I must admit Luke’s writing is a little more intriguing, but not so accurate.
I believe the other three writers referred to the spirit descending in the manner of a dove.
This is very helpful, Laymond! I’ve often wondered how you arrived at some of your positions. If you believe that bits of the Bible are embellishment, that explains it! Plus, I never get your reasoning. Why the bird would need to hang around is just… strange.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Couldnt it be said that in the bodily shape of a dove, or in the manner of a dove, are actualy the same statement. I can say, a bicycle is in the bodily shape of a motorcycle or
I could say that it is in the manner of a bicycle, that the motorcycle was invented and it would make senseto make the conncetion.
Also you said where does it mention earth or his followers? Im not sure what you are saying here since the verse you quoted above mentions it. Satan was cast to the earth with his angels.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Matthew, Mark, and John were all describing the way in which the Holy Spirit arrived. Out of the heavens, like a dove lands on earth.
But Luke describes the physical appearance, of a spirit which no man can see. I believe a biblical description of a spirit said it is like the wind, you can’t see it, but you know it is there.
Mt:3:16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mk:1:10: And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Lk:3:22: And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Jn:1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him
John said, and it abode upon him, I believe that means it never left. I believe there are other places which said it never left.
Col:2:9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Yes I know John said “I saw” but you can see the results, or even the actions of wind, without actually seeing the wind. “I saw the wind blow the barn down” but did I really?
May 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Hello Patrick,
Thanks for writing these blogs. I appreciate them. You mentioned that there were a few things you would write more about if people were interested. Well, I am interested in it all. I am a scientist about to finish my master’s degree and I hear about things like you mentioned all the time. I would like to know more about what you think.
Also, you are in science too? What do you do?
Thanks
I have two Ph.D.’s, both in science. My higher doctorate is in psychoneuroimmunology. I still stay connected with research and I teach courses at the Ohio State University among others (continuing ed, short courses only).