Old Earth Creation holds to the current scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years), as well as the age of the universe (13.7 billion years). However, Old Earth Creation is a broad term. Technically, everything other than Young Earth Creation would fit within this view, including Theistic Evolution, Gap Theory, Literary-Framework theory, etc. After all, even theistic evolutionists are now referring to themselves as “evolutionary creationists.” Therefore, for clarity, we will consider three prominent and popular Old Earth Creation views.
#1. Day-Age View
The Day-Age View is also referred to a Progressive Creationism. As the name suggests, adherents of this view understand the word “day” (yôm) in Genesis 1 refers to a massive age of time. They hold that this is a literal reading of Genesis 1, because the Hebrew word (yôm) has a wide semantic range and can refer to a long and indeterminate period of time. This view also allows that “certain forms of evolutionary development may be true.”[1]
Progressive creation differs from theistic evolution in the idea that universal common descent accurately describes all of life—specifically with regard to humans. Under this view, God entered into history at various times to create life, and then, allowed nature to take its course. This seems consistent with Genesis 1, where we see God both actively creating and allowing his creation to flourish. Moreover, there could have been more interventions than those listed in Genesis 1, because Genesis is not an exhaustive account of creation.
The most popular and articulate proponent of this view is astronomer Hugh Ross and his ministry Reasons to Believe. Other proponents would include Charles Hodge,[2] B.B. Warfield,[3] Davis A. Young,[4] James M. Boice,[5] R. Laird Harris,[6] Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser,[7] Gleason Archer,[8] Walter Bradley,[9] Francis Schaeffer,[10] and many others.
#2. Analogical-Day Interpretation
- John Collins holds to what he calls the “analogical days position.”[11] Under this view, the “days” of Genesis 1 are analogical to human workdays. That is, the “days are God’s workdays, their length is neither specified nor important, and not everything in the account needs to be taken as historically sequential.”[12] Just as we work during the day and rest at night, so also, God worked and rested in between.[13] Collins writes, “Since this is an analogy, we should be cautious about too much literalism, which means that we can call the days and their activities broadly sequential; some things might be groups by logical rather than chronological criteria.”[14]
Collins notes that other OT passages support this conceptual framework. After all, the “eyes of the Lord” are analogical for human eyes (2 Chron. 16:9). Yet we would be greatly mistaken to take this language literally.[15]
Others affirm the analogical day view. For instance, Reformed scholar Herman Bavinck held to this view. He writes, “‘Day’ in the first chapter of the Bible denotes the time in which God was at work creating… The creation days are the workdays of God.”[16] More recently, R. Kent Hughes referred to the days of creation as “God’s work days,” which are analogous to human work days.[17] And finally, Vern Poythress understands Genesis 1 as referring to God using language that is analogous to how an ancient reader would comprehend the creation from their contemporary setting. Under his view, the chapter was written so that anyone from any culture could understand its meaning.[18] In fact, this is one of the key benefits of this view—namely, it gives a message for all people throughout history.
#3. Intermittent-Day View
Robert C. Newman holds to the intermittent-day view. Under this view, the “days” of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days, but they are not connected in a strict sequence—one after the other. Instead, long periods of time separate these literal days.
Furthermore, God’s creation does not only occur within these 24-hour periods of time, but rather, each new day brings the dawn of a new creative period in God’s work. The completion of the creative act could come to an end much later. Therefore, the events of Genesis 1 overlap with one another. Newman explains,
The ‘days’ of Genesis 1 are the 24-hour kind, they are chronological, but they are not contiguous. That is, long periods of time separate these literal 24-hour days. Furthermore, all the creative activity does not take place on these days, for then the ‘sixth-day problem’ remains unresolved. Rather, these days have a commemorative purpose. The proposal is that each day serves as a distinct preface to a new creative period in which God is beginning for the first time to bring forth that which has never appeared. Each day, therefore, introduces the activities of the subsequent creative period. The previous creative period continues and overlaps with the new one just initiated, and the overlap persists well into the future.[19]
John Lennox holds this view as a “possibility.” He writes, “The writer did not intend us to think of the first six days as days of a single earth week, but rather as a sequence of six creation days; that is, days of normal length (with evenings and mornings as the text says) in which God acted to create something new, but days that might well have been separated by long periods of time.”[20] Lennox supports this view by noting that the initial creation is separated by an undefined gap (Gen. 1:1-2). That is, Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the universe, while Genesis 1:2 focuses on the Planet Earth. Since there is no mention of “days” between these two verses, we simply don’t know how much time transpired. Lennox continues, “The six creation days themselves could well have been days of normal length, spaced out at intervals over the entire period of time that God took to complete his work. The outworking of the potential of each creative fiat would occupy an unspecified period of time after that particular creation day.”[21]
Therefore, according to the Intermittent-Day View, creation may have looked something like this:
Critique of Old-Earth Models
Critics of the Old-Earth view raise a number of critiques, but we can boil these down to three central problems: (1) Genesis doesn’t follow natural history exactly, (2) animal suffering and death existed before the Fall, and (3) science is being read into scripture (i.e. concordism). Let’s consider each of these difficulties:
#1. Genesis doesn’t follow natural history exactly
Critics of various Old Earth models see problems with the order in which life is created, because this allegedly doesn’t align with the natural sciences. While the order is largely consistent, a few outliers stand out.
OBJECTION #1. Fruit trees exist before marine life (Day Three)
Fruit trees didn’t appear until the late Cretaceous Period (~125 million years ago), which is well after the appearance of marine life in the Cambrian Era (~540 million years ago). Yet Genesis clearly places plant life on the surface of the “earth” long before marine life.
Day-Age advocates respond by arguing that the Hebrew language is limited, and clearly this ancient language lacks scientific precision. Therefore, they argue that the words might have a broad meaning that could refer to various reproducing plant life:
“Sprout” (dešū) and “vegetation” (dešeʾ) are closely related: one is the verb and the other the noun. The term “vegetation” has a broad semantic range. It “appears to be the broader category, subsuming both ‘plants and trees.’”[22] It means “young, new grass, green herb, vegetation,”[23] or “vegetation, of which man sees only the upper part, grass, moss… green vegetation.”[24]
“Plants” (ʿēśeb) is “one of four major synonyms for vegetation, verdure, herb, or grass” and it refers to “non-woody tissue vegetation, rather than in the more restricted nuance of seasoning or medicinal plants.”[25] These “plants yielding seed” seem more general, than the “plants of the field” mentioned later (Gen. 2:5). The latter refers to “cultivated plants” of some kind, because they require humans to work the soil.[26] This is the same word used as “every kind of green food” for all animal life (Gen. 1:30).
“Trees” (ʿēṣ) usually refers to “wood” or “lumber.” However, in the context of Genesis 1, it refers to “any kind of tree in God’s creation.”[27]
“Seed” (zeraʿ) can mean literal “seed,” “semen,” or “offspring.” It can refer to the “seed” of men or animals (Jer. 31:27), as well as the “seed” of Eve or the “seed” of Satan (Gen. 3:15). These are surely metaphorical uses of the term, because Satan doesn’t have literal offspring.
Day-Age proponents state that these terms could broadly refer to “green plant life” and “would apply generically to any photosynthetic land life.”[28] In other words, the plant life might not refer to robust land plants, as we know them, but rather to primitive photosynthetic life.
Hugh Ross argues that something had to oxygenate the atmosphere before the Cambrian Explosion (~540 mya), and this “could have been achieved only if vegetation [of some kind] had long been present on the continental landmasses.”[29] He cites two papers from the scientific journal Nature that demonstrate evidence of pre-Cambrian, non-ocean dwelling plant life.[30] He admits that not all of these structures were vegetation, but many were.
Other Day-Age proponents argue that the days might contains gaps. Take Day Six for example: In Genesis 1:27, we read that God created man and woman. If all we had was this text, we might assume that the man and woman were created at the same moment. However, Genesis 2 shows that there was a gap of time in between these two events (v.7, 21-22). Perhaps the creation of plant life was also separated by a gap of time.
The Intermittent-Day View states that God could have begun earlier, but wasn’t finished until later—namely, overlapping days.[31] So, with regard to the fruit trees preceding marine life, Newman writes, “It is not necessary to suppose that the fruit trees of this passage were created before any kind of animal life. Instead, this passage simply states that the creative period involving land vegetation began before the later creative periods of the animals. In any case, since Genesis one mentions vegetation only once in the whole account, it is possible that all vegetation is mentioned together merely for economy of expression, or to indicate its significance as the foundation upon which animal life, including human life, builds.”[32]
OBJECTION #2. The Sun isn’t created until Day Four
Old Earth creationists argue that God had already created the “heavens and the earth” in verse 1. This included the sun, moon, and stars (cf. Joel 3:15-16). Therefore, the sun already existed before the “days” of Genesis. Genesis 1:14 merely refers to the function of these heavenly bodies—not their creation.
Day-Age proponents argue that according to natural history, the atmosphere was initially opaque, and the slow oxygenation of the atmosphere allowed light to pass through. According to the Day-Age view, this makes sense of light piercing through this opaque covering in the opening verses of Genesis: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). At this very early stage in Earth history, a light cycle would’ve become visible for the first time, rather than casting the surface of the Earth in darkness. Yet because of volcanic activity and other factors, the sky would’ve still been quite hazy for billions of years. It might’ve been comparable to a “heavy overcast of a stormy day,”[33] being translucent, but not yet transparent.
On Day Four, the atmosphere changed from light-diffusing to light-transmitting,[34] and the sun and moon would’ve become much clearer.[35] This would prepare the way for God’s next stage of creation: marine and terrestrial animals. The visibility of the sun would be necessary to show animals the “best times to feed, reproduce, migrate, and/or hibernate.”[36]
If the viewer of the account is the Spirit on the surface of the Earth (Gen. 1:2), then this would make perfect sense. In other words, the narrative is not being given from outer space, but from the surface of the Earth. James Boice writes, “Light had been reaching earth since the first day of creation; it was through this influence that the vegetation created on day three was enabled to appear and prosper. But now the skies cleared sufficiently for the heavenly bodies to become visible. It is not said that these were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1. But now they begin to function as regulators of the day and night.”[37]
Intermittent-Day proponents like Robert Newman contend that Day Four “describes the breakup of the earth’s cloud cover as seen by an earthbound observer who witnesses the first appearance—rather than the creation—of the sun, moon, and stars now that the cloud cover breaks up.”[38] He continues, “Until the clouds had cleared enough to expose the sun, an earthbound observer would not be able to see what was producing the day/night sequence.”[39]
OBJECTION #3. Marine and avian life exist before land mammals (Day Five)
According to the natural sciences, land mammals existed before birds. Yet Genesis has this in reverse. Hugh Ross responds by noting that these sea mammals are referred to “generically,”[40] while the land animals are given more detailed descriptions.
“Sea monsters” (tannîm) refer to “any large reptile.”[41] They can refer to “enormous sea creatures,” but they are “often used in a figurative sense to denote God’s most powerful opponents, whether natural (Job 7:12) or national (Babylon: Jer 51:34; Egypt: Isa 51:9; Ezk 29:3; 32:2.)”[42] The word has a broad enough range of meaning that it can even be translated as a “jackal” (Lam. 4:3).
“Birds” (ʿôp) also has a broad range of meaning. The Hebrew literally means “flying things,”[43] including “birds or insects.”[44]
Day Five could refer to the Avalon Explosion and the Cambrian Explosion (530-520 mya),[45] both of which preceded land animals.[46] Regarding the land animals of Day Six, Ross writes, “The specificity of this list suggests that it is not referring to land mammals generically. A closer look suggests it focuses, rather, on three categories of land mammals strategically important for the support of humans.”[47] Thus, the text generically refers to avian and marine life on Day Five, and it only refers to land animals that relate to humans on Day Six—not all terrestrial mammals.[48] Another possibility is to allow for overlap. As James Boice notes, most progressive creationists allow “for some overlap of the creative days.”[49]
#2. Animal suffering and death existed before the Fall
Under an Old Earth view, animals died for hundreds of millions of years before the Fall. YECs consider animal suffering and death to be gratuitous, cruel, and evil, and they hold the Old Earth view in contempt for indicting God for this state of affairs. Truly, this is one of the main driving forces behind YEC.
This is a difficult problem to be sure, and we have much to say regarding this objection. But before we explore this subject, we should begin with a question: What makes something good or evil?
YECs would surely agree that God’s nature is the ultimate source of moral value and goodness. Therefore, his estimation of morality is always accurate, while our moral notions are sometimes fallen and fallible. As Christians, we know better than to say that “evil is anything we don’t like.”[50] While we might individually have an ethical and even emotional reaction to animal death, is this based on the Bible or on our own moral compass? In other words, are we understanding the ethics of animal death through the lens of scripture, or interpreting scripture through the lens of our personal ethics regarding animal death? When we turn to the Bible, we discover that animal predation is actually part of God’s creativity and design.
The Bible never refers to animal predation as immoral. According to Scripture, animals are not moral creatures. Bible readers are well aware that only humans are referred to as “sinners.” Therefore, animals do cause and experience pain, but this is not considered “sin,” according to the Bible. Even atheist Michael Shermer agrees, “It does not appear that nonhuman animals can consciously assess the rightness or wrongness of a thought, behavior, or choice in themselves or fellow members of their species. Thus, I hold that morality is the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens.”[51]
In medieval times, various European cultures couldn’t see this distinction. Townships held public courts to legally prosecute, convict, torture, and kill animals who had harmed humans. These trials were nothing short of bizarre. For instance, in 1386, the “tribunal of Falaise sentenced a [pig] to be mangled and maimed in the head and forelegs, and then to be hanged, for having torn the face and arms of a child and thus caused its death… As if to make the travesty of justice complete, the [pig] was dressed in man’s clothes and executed on the public square near the city hall.”[52]
Does this seem odd to anyone else? Of course it does! Animals do not have the ability to make moral choices, and claiming otherwise raises bizarre ethical conclusions.
Animal death before the Fall is not any easier to explain than after the Fall. Animals didn’t commit sin before the Fall when they preyed upon one another, and neither do they sin today. Whether we like it or not, animals were not designed to live forever. God never gave the Tree of Life to animals, Jesus didn’t die for animals, and the Bible never promises resurrected bodies to animals. According to Jesus, humans simply have “much more worth” than animals (Mt. 6:26). Of course, this doesn’t mean that animals are therefore worthless. It simply means that they were never designed to live forever.[53]
Psalm 104 teaches that animal predation is part of God’s design. In reflecting on creation, the psalmist writes, “The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God” (Ps. 104:21). Later, he adds, “[All animals] wait for You to give them their food in due season. 28 You give to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good” (Ps. 104:27-28). This refers to animal predation, and like Genesis 1, the psalmist calls this “good” (ṭôb). The psalmist does not describe animal predation as sinful. In fact, the only “sinners” mentioned in this psalm are humans—not animals (Ps. 104:35).
Job 39 teaches that animal predation is part of God’s design. God asks Job, “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, 40 when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in their lair?” (Job 38:39-40 NLT). Later, God states that at his “command” (Job 39:27), the eagles “suck up blood” from their prey (Job 39:30).
God commanded the sacrificial system. Animal sacrifices in the Temple did not purchase forgiveness for humans (Heb. 10:1-4). However, animal death was justifiable because it foreshadowed Jesus’ ultimate death.
God’s creation is still called “good.” In referring to marriage and food, Paul writes, “Everything created by God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4). This doesn’t mean that the world is perfect or sinless, but it does teach that God’s creation is still good—even after the Fall. Therefore, to “affirm that the creation is ‘good,’ then, is to affirm that God takes delight in it and that man at his best will do so as well.”[54]
Jesus celebrated the Passover. Matthew, Mark, and Luke specifically state that Jesus ate the Passover lamb (Mt. 26:17-18; Mk. 14:14; Lk. 22:8, 11, 15). Was Jesus committing sin by eating a slain animal? Not at all! Jesus wasn’t committing sin, because eating animals is not sinful. YECs often claim that animal death is evil, even as they chow down on bacon burgers and honey baked ham. Let’s not have a double standard here… One standard is good enough.
Does the Bible teach that the Fall brought about animal death?
The short answer is, No. The long answer is, Not even once!
But this doesn’t stop YECs from citing proof-texts from Scripture. Let’s carefully consider those offered, and assess if they teach that animal death began at the Fall.
Genesis 1:29-30
“I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food’; and it was so” (Gen. 1:29-30).
This passage is where YECs get the idea that all animals were vegetarians. However, OECs point out that, at most, this would apply to land animals—not marine life (“every thing that moves on the earth”). But even more of an issue is the fact that a positive affirmation cannot be turned into a negative inference. In other words, God gave plants for food, but the text doesn’t state that he only gave plants for food. To assert this would commit what D.A. Carson calls the “negative inference fallacy.”[55]
If God was truly limiting animals from eating meat, then this dietary restriction was never lifted for animals—only humans (Gen. 9:3).[56] This implies that animals were eating meat in addition to vegetables the entire time, including up to the present moment. The text could also imply that “all life depends on vegetation”[57] as the “foundation for the food chain.”[58]
Genesis 3:14-19
After the Fall, God brings judgment on humans, Satan, and the ground (Gen. 3:14-19). Genesis never mentions any of the elaborate concepts that YECs claim. It doesn’t mention animal death, animal mutation, or animal predation. Boice writes, “Nowhere is it said that the earth or universe underwent a drastic transformation.”[59]
Genesis 9:3
“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you” (Gen. 9:3).
Again, YECs state that this teaches that humans were vegetarians before this time. But even if this was true, it still wouldn’t apply to animal carnivory—only human carnivory.
But is it true? This could simply refer to God’s provision—not his prohibition. God himself killed animals to clothe Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21), and Abel’s sacrifice of his sheep was pleasing to God (Gen. 4:2-4). Therefore, Genesis 9:3 could be “ratifying the post-fall practice of meat-eating rather than inaugurating it.”[60]
Isaiah 65:25
“The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain” (Isa. 65:25; cf. Isa. 11:6).
This passage refers to the future—not the past. YECs argue that this is a connection between the Garden of Eden and the New Heavens and Earth. But the text never explicitly teaches this, and the New Heavens and Earth will be very different from the Garden in a number of ways (e.g. no sun, no moon, no sea, no night, no marriage).[61]
Romans 5:12
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
YECs argue that death originated with Adam, because the text states “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” We agree.
But death for whom? The rest of this verse states that “death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Clearly, this refers to human death—not animal death. Later Paul writes, “If by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). Jesus’ sacrificial atonement applies only to humans—not animals.
Romans 8:18-23
“I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:18-23).
YECs contend that all of creation had a catastrophic fall in Genesis 3. It was “subjected to futility” and it “groans and suffers” because of the Fall. YECs argue that the “whole creation” experienced a Fall as a consequence of Adam and Eve.
Yet, this idea doesn’t come from Genesis, which only states that humans, the Serpent, and the ground were cursed—not the entire universe. Instead, the reason that the creation groans is because it is waiting for humans to receive their glorified resurrection bodies. Currently, humans are poor rulers of the planet (Gen. 1:28), but we will one day, be perfect leaders. This is why the creation groans: It is waiting for us to be glorified so that we can rightly rule the Planet (v.21).
Is animal cruelty justified?
Not at all! Humans are free moral agents, and God holds us responsible for how we treat creation (Gen. 1:28; Rev. 11:18). Solomon writes, “A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal” (Prov. 12:10). However, this describes the relationship between humans and animals—not the relationship between animals and other animals.
Why would God allow animal suffering—then or now?
Any animal lover sympathizes with the problem of animal suffering, but YEC doesn’t offer solutions. Their alternative is believing that all animals were herbivores before the Fall. This would mean that the teeth of sharks and the Tyrannosaurus rex were originally designed for eating plants—not animals!
How then do we answer the problem of animal suffering?
One suggestion comes from philosopher Michael J. Murray in his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (2009). Murray’s central thesis is the argument that humans are one of the few species who have first-order consciousness.[62] This is the awareness of our own thoughts—namely, “I am having a thought.” Animals lack first-order consciousness, so while they do feel pain, they do not have a first-person experience of pain—namely the idea, “I am in pain.”
The portion of the brain associated with consciousness is the prefrontal cortex, and humans are the only animal species that have a prefrontal cortex developed enough to support consciousness. Therefore, it is argued that God didn’t give this sort of consciousness to animal life. To be sure, animals do experience pain, but they don’t experience the idea: “I am in pain.” Animals do suffer, but because they lack human-level consciousness, they are incapable of having the thought, “I am suffering.”
We are not claiming that this resolves the problem of pain in the animal order. But it does offer one possible solution to this difficulty.
#3. Science is being read into Scripture (i.e. concordism)
The final critique of Old-Earth models is called concordism. As the name suggests, concordism attempts to find a “concord” or harmony between science and scripture, rather than allowing these to be antithetical or at “discord” with one another.[63]
At first glance, we see no problem with this approach. After all, God speaks through nature (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-4) and through Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). Properly understood, either our interpretation of science is mistaken, or our interpretation of scripture is mistaken. We should not believe that God would contradict his world with his word, any more than Matthew would contradict Mark.
The problem, in our estimation, is when students of science ignore the authorial intent of biblical passages, forcing modern scientific discoveries into the meaning of an ancient text. Speculation can run rampant, and it often leads to bizarre interpretations. Hugh Ross—himself a concordist—cautions that interpreters “can fall victim to reading into the text what the text does not imply.”[64] The same is true when Christians misinterpret the statements of scientists to artificially conform to biblical passages. In both cases, the concordist is removing authorial intent—either from the ancient author or from the modern scientist.
In our view, we should use grammatical-historical hermeneutics to show the range of possible interpretations of Scripture before looking to the natural sciences. Likewise, we should take a humble and patient approach to the progress of the sciences, rather than dogmatically importing scientific findings into the biblical passages. After all, scientific research continues to change, and we shouldn’t claim that the Bible taught a scientific truth when this could be overturned later. A better approach is to offer different “models” (plural) for integrating science and scripture, but we should resist dogmatism.
[1] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.52.
[2] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 (1871)], I, 568-574.
[3] B.B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture: B. B. Warfield, Selected Writings, eds. Mark Noll & David N . Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), pp. 211-229, 269-287.
[4] Davis A. Young (son of Westminster professor Edward J. Young) in Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution.
[5] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998).
[6] R. Laird Harris, “The Length of the Creative Days in Genesis 1” in Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall, eds., Did God Create in Six Days (Taylors, S.C: Southern Presbyterian Press and Oakridge, TN: The Covenant Foundation, 1999), pp.101-111.
[7] Walter Kaiser (et al.), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996).
[8] Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998).
[9] Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen, “The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, eds. Earl Radmacher and Robert Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 285-317.
See Three Views on Creation and Evolution, J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), p.78-79.
[10] Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p.39: 1975; No Final Conflict, p. 134.
[11] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.124.
[12] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.124.
[13] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.125.
[14] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.127.
[15] C. John Collins, Science and Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 95.
[16] Herman Bavinck, In the Beginning (Baker, 1999), pp.120-126.
[17] R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), pp.26-27.
[18] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), pp.137-162.
[19] Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips, Herman J. Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (2nd ed. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 2007), p.61.
[20] John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p.54.
[21] John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p.55.
[22] Allen, R. B. (1999). 1707 עשׂב. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 700). Chicago: Moody Press.
[23] Allen, R. B. (1999). 1707 עשׂב. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 700). Chicago: Moody Press.
[24] Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994-2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 234). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
[25] Allen, R. B. (1999). 1707 עשׂב. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 700). Chicago: Moody Press.
[26] Allen, R. B. (1999). 1707 עשׂב. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 700). Chicago: Moody Press.
[27] Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., Jr., & Waltke, B. K. (Eds.). (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 689). Chicago: Moody Press.
[28] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), pp.49-50.
[29] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.51.
[30] L. Paul Knauth and Martin J. Kennedy, “The Late-Precambrian Greening of the Earth,” Nature 460 (August 6, 2009): 728-732.
Paul K. Strother (et al.), “Earth’s Earliest Non-Marine Eukaryotes,” Nature 473 (May 26, 2011): 505-509.
[31] J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), vol. 1, pp. 144-145.
[32] Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips, Herman J. Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (2nd ed. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 2007), p.68.
[33] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.52.
[34] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.54.
[35] Archer writes, “The specific verb for “create ex nihilo” (bārā˒) is not used in Gen. 1:16, but rather the more general term, make (˓āsâ). The fair inference is that a dense vapor encompassing the earth had hitherto precluded this possibility, even though sufficient diffused light may have previously penetrated to support the growth of plant life.” Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998), p.202.
[36] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.53.
[37] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.75.
[38] Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips, Herman J. Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (2nd ed. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 2007), p.69.
[39] Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips, Herman J. Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (2nd ed. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 2007), p.69.
[40] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.61.
[41] Youngblood, R. F. (1999). 2528 תנן. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 976). Chicago: Moody Press.
[42] Youngblood, R. F. (1999). 2528 תנן. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 976). Chicago: Moody Press.
[43] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.53.
[44] Schultz, C. (1999). 1582 עוּף. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 654). Chicago: Moody Press.
[45] Charles R. Marshall and James W. Valentine, “The Importance of Preadapted Genomes in the Origin of the Animal Bodyplans and the Cambrian Explosion,” Evolution 64 (2010): 1189-1201; Douglas H. Erwin and James W. Valentine, The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity (Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts, 2013).
[46] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.57ff.
[47] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.66.
[48] We know that Genesis is not an exhaustive account. While the text states that God created “every living creature that moves” (Gen. 1:21), this is surely only referring to this time period, because Genesis goes on to describe more creatures in the subsequent verses.
[49] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.75.
[50] David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), p.56.
[51] Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil (New York: Times Books, 2004), 27.
[52] Edward Payson Evans, The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals (New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, 1906), 140.
[53] David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), p.58, 68.
[54] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.70.
[55] D.A. Carson defines the negative inference fallacy in this way: “It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true.” D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), p.101. Consider some examples of this fallacy:
(1) “All the basketball players were exercising at the gym. Therefore, no one else was exercising there.”
(2) “Jeff hates broccoli. Therefore, he likes every other kind of vegetable.”
(3) “Jesus gave an exception for divorce. Therefore, there are no other exceptions for divorce.”
These are all examples of the “negative inference fallacy,” and it does not logically follow. A way to avoid the fallacy is to change or add the word “only” to the major premise of the argument or proposition (i.e. “Only the basketball players…”).
[56] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.103.
[57] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.57.
[58] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.103.
[59] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.77.
[60] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.34.
[61] To be fair, many of these features in Revelation 21-22 are likely symbolic because they are written in the apocalyptic genre. However, marriage is one indisputable difference between the Garden and the New Heavens and New Earth (Mt. 22:30).
[62] Michael Murray, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (Oxford University Press, 2009), p.55.
[63] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.106.
[64] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.20.