.
Sight of the Lord Creation
Option: Click Here to go to the Main Menu
The Evidence of the Age of the Earth Effects the Defense of Our Faith
In this message those who believe the word of God and believe that it can be found in the bible are called believers, and those who doubt or do not believe the word of God are called nonbelievers. If the nonbeliever hears a believer explain why one should believe the word of God, then the nonbeliever becomes a listening nonbeliever. This message speaks to believers, but it is also intended to enable understanding by nonbelievers who become listening nonbelievers if they read this message.
If a listening nonbeliever engages in a conversation by giving a defense for his or her nonbelief, then one of the most common sorts of response that the nonbeliever may give may be summarized by the following group of statements, not including the parts in parenthesis.
“Scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old (statement #1), but the bible says that the earth is only a few thousand years old (statement #2). Therefore, (if both statements are true then) the bible is not the word of a God that we should believe.”
Admittedly, if statements #1 and #2 were both true, then the conclusion would be a logical conclusion. Therefore, we must choose to protest the first or the second statement or both or just give up on the defense of our faith, but we should not give up (1 Peter 3:15, Mat 10:33). This message will examine the choice of which one of those two statements is untrue and worthy of protest.
When a nonbeliever says that scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old, it may be the first choice for protest by the believer because it is the latest of the statements in that group, and it has appeared at the same time as many other new lies that are leading men and women away from the word of God. Furthermore, the age of the earth is one of the key parts of evidence which is used to support the theory of evolution which is a powerful cause of the nonbeliever’s ignorance about the fact that the existence of life on earth is evidence of God’s work. Furthermore, according to the understanding of our ancestors, it is contrary to the word of God which should be enough to disprove it.
However, if the believer protests the scientific evidence of the age of the earth, then he or she is entering a subject about which men claim to have physical evidence to prove their point. So, if the believer cannot explain why the physical evidence is incorrect, then that lack of explanation is a lack of defense, and if the believer does present an explanation for why the physical evidence is incorrect, then the nonbeliever has reason to doubt the word of the believer who may know very little about the subject of the evidence, especially in comparison to the many other men who have devoted their careers to efforts related to that subject.
It is possible for a large group of men to devote their careers to supporting lies or mistakes. This happens quite often among leaders in politics and religion. However, lies and mistakes in politics and religion are based on opinions and things that very few men have ever seen or heard, and their statements cannot be proven over and over. On the other hand, scientific evidence is something that can be proven over and over. That makes it much more difficult to support lies, although it is still possible if it is supported by politics.
For example, evolution is a subject about which its experts claim to have their conclusion proven by scientific evidence which is not true. Their ultimate conclusion is that the existence of life on earth is due to processes that do not require the intervention of God. However, proof of that conclusion would require proof of the following three essential pieces of scientific evidence which are not all present.
The first essential piece of evidence of evolution is that the earth is old. If it were not old, then there would not be enough time for it to take effect. The second essential piece of evidence of evolution is that life forms slowly change from generation to generation due to the more likely death of creatures that have genes that are less effective for supporting life. The third essential piece of evidence of evolution is that life can evolve from lifeless material.
The ultimate conclusion depends on all three of those essential pieces of scientific evidence, but the third piece of scientific evidence is missing. The experts in the field of evolution are able to discuss the third piece of evidence, but their discussions about it are not a presentation of scientific proof, and for that reason, they usually avoid the subject. They provide an impression that their evidence is complete by focusing our attention on the first two pieces of evidence, and by providing that impression, they are providing a deception.
In spite of the fact that it is impossible, they require that life must have evolved from lifeless material because they have no other explanation for how it could have happened because they have assumed that there is no God, and they cast out all who say that there is a God. The requirement that life must have evolved from lifeless material supports the ultimate conclusion (that the existence of life on earth is due to processes that do not require the intervention of God) which supports the initial assumption (that there is no God), but that is not scientific proof. It is a self-supporting assumption that requires us to accept that the impossible must be true (that life evolved from lifeless material), and it is a distraction from the fact that the existence of life on earth is evidence of God’s work.
Furthermore, the second piece of evidence is scientifically weak because the evidence of gradual change does not include evidence of the large steps of progress that are manifested by the large differences between the various sorts of life that are now living on the earth, and there are many experts who know about the weakness of the second piece of evidence and the lack of the third piece of evidence, and it is easy to find their work on the internet, but their message is not heard by the majority of listeners because their message is politically suppressed. This link leads to more information about The Trouble with Evolution.
Furthermore, if a believer devotes attention to protesting the first piece of evidence (the age of the earth), then he or she may be accidentally supporting the evil deception by distracting the listening nonbeliever away from the missing third piece of evidence of evolution (the missing evidence that life evolved from lifeless material) which is the fatal evidence against the ultimate conclusion of evolution. The leaders of the nonbelievers know about this weakness of the believers, and for that reason, they prefer to attack believers by focusing on the age of the earth, and they portray all believers as young earth believers because doing so helps to support their distraction away from their missing third piece of evidence.
However, the scientific evidence of the age of the earth is not as weak as the evidence of evolution. It is a body of knowledge that is founded on careful measurements of the properties of materials that fill the earth and the heavens, and the measurements are made using tools that are based on the same scientific principles that support the design and production of numerous tools and products that we depend upon in this modern age. It is difficult to conceal a lie based on physical evidence, especially when the evidence is abundant.
For example, if a man wishes to know how long it will take to drive to another city, then he need only know what is the distance to that city and what is the speed at which he may travel and then calculate the travel time equals the distance to that city divided by the speed of travel. Likewise, if a scientist wishes to know how long ago did a certain star generate light, then he need only know what is the distance to the star and what is the speed of light and then calculate the travel time equals the distance to that star divided by the speed of light. The results of such measurements and calculations indicate that the stars began radiating light billions of years ago.
It is relatively easy to measure the speed of light on earth and in outer space near the earth, and the knowledge of that information is essential for the design and production of high-speed electronic communications equipment all over the world. Regarding the distance to the stars, the evidence is too complex for exploration in this message, and yet there is no significant amount of dispute about the distance of the stars among scientists including those who proclaim their belief in the word of God. It is not like the subject of evolution where there are two different types of interpretation of scientific evidence, and one of them is politically suppressed.
Admittedly, the stars are out of reach, and one could argue that the earth is young, even if the stars are old. So, the evidence of the age of the earth ultimately depends on the evidence of things that are on the earth. That evidence is present in something with which we have abundant contact, and we cannot deny its presence. Fossil fuel is the most widely used raw material that is used to make fuel for automobiles and other sorts of transportation and heating and electrical power generation throughout the world. The raw material is taken from deep within the earth in the form of oil, gas and coal. Next, it is transported to refineries where it is converted into useful fuel.
Fossil fuel is not dinosaur bones. It appears to be the decomposed residue of plants and trees which God created on the third day. It appears to include the oldest evidence of anything that has ever lived on the earth, hundreds of millions of years ago. It is evidence of the age of the earth, but it is not evidence of life appearing on earth without the intervention of God. More information about this subject is provided in this message in the discussion about the appearance of age.
When geologists look for evidence of where to find fossil fuel and precious metals, the evidence of the age of the content of the earth in which they dig is a valuable piece of evidence that enables judgment of the prospects for finding the material for which they search. They are financed by corporations that pursue honest profit. Lying about the age of the earth would damage the value of the results of their work when they direct the performance of tests and analyze the test results. Their reports of the test results are required to support the pursuit of honest profit.
That sort of profit does not depend on religion or antireligion or politics. It depends on the sale of goods that are taken from the earth in places that were selected with the help of knowledge about the age of the earth. Lying about the evidence would interfere with the pursuit of profit, and for that reason, we have reason to believe that the knowledge is true. It is not like the knowledge about evolution for which the only profit that the workers receive comes from the sale of the information to those who wish to see evidence that supports the conclusion that they have already chosen to support their denial of the word of God.
Due to the strength of the evidence of the age of the earth and universe, it is worthy of reexamining the issue that led to protesting the evidence. The issue is that one of the most common sorts of defense that a nonbeliever may give for his or her nonbelief is one that may be summarized by the following group of statements, not including the parts in parenthesis.
“Scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old (statement #1), but the bible says that the earth is only a few thousand years old (statement #2). Therefore, (if both statements are true then) the bible is not the word of a God that we should believe.”
The evidence of statement #1 is based upon the information that comes from tools that can measure the properties of God’s creation, but it also depends on the way men interpret that information, and this message has already protested the interpretation of that information regarding evolution, but the evidence of the age of the earth is a different subject.
The evidence of statement #2 is based upon the word of God, which is without error, but that evidence also depends on the way men interpret the bible, and men are not without error regarding how they interpret the bible, for if they were without error, then they would all agree. Due to the strength of the evidence of the age of the earth and universe, it is worthy of carefully examining the way men interpret the bible when they proclaim what it means regarding the age of the earth.
Believers know that the word of God is without error. If a believer would accept that any part of the word of God is an error, then he or she would also have to question the more essential parts which are the foundation of faith. In that sense, the physical evidence of the age of the earth is just as much of an issue for the believer as it is for the nonbeliever, and yet the question remains. What is the truthful interpretation of the bible?
That question is not the same as asking whether there is an error in the word of God. It is asking whether men are in error in the way that they interpret the word of God. Furthermore, if a believer is in error regarding the interpretation of the word of God regarding the age of the earth, then will that believer be cast into the lake of fire for such a mistake (Rev 20:15)? Certainly not, and this message will not waste words to defend against any other answer to the question.
However, the listening nonbelievers are in danger of the lake of fire due to a mistake about this subject. Therefore, the motive for examining the issue of the age of the earth is not for the sake of the believers. It is for the sake of the listening nonbelievers. Examining the question does not endanger the salvation of a believer, but it is essential for the salvation of listening nonbelievers who have been taught and who understand the evidence of the age of the earth, and they have also been taught that the evidence supports the conclusion that the bible is not the word of God. It is also for the sake of the children and grandchildren of believers who are being taught these things.
The motive for examining the issue of the age of the earth is not a justification for adjusting the interpretation of the bible as required to appease the nonbelievers or the believers. It is a motive for a believer to review the details of a doctrine about which he or she may have already chosen a position and where he or she may feel comfortable to remain. The salvation of nonbelievers and the children of believers are worthy of an effort on the part of believers to do such a review.
For those who doubt the evidence of age, this link to the Physical Evidence of Age provides a more detailed discussion about the evidence. It explains the information in a context where there is no doubt that God is the creator, and it is designed to enable the deepest possible understanding without requiring an education in science.
Comparing the Evidence with the Word of God
Of course, no other evidence can outweigh the word of God. So now that the subject is defined and the importance of its effect is identified, let us examine the word of God and what do men say about the word of God.
This message is approaching a point where it will provide new answers to old questions, but the importance of a new answer would not be apparent unless it can be compared to the well-known answers. For that reason, it is necessary to first examine the well-known questions and answers that come from both sides of the discussion about the age of the earth.
This message comes from a single source, and the same is true for most messages about this subject because it is the only way for either side to express the message in a stable format. When presenting a message from a single source about a subject about which many men disagree, it is common practice to avoid providing a good explanation of the best well known reasons for believing a conclusion that is contrary to the one that is presented as the proper choice. However, this section of this message explains the best well known questions and answers that come from both sides of the discussion about the age of the earth because failure to do so would diminish the value of any other answer that is not well known in the next section.
Furthermore, the new answers are not a complete replacement for all of the other well-known answers. So, it would be incomplete if it did not include some of the well-known answers. The reader is invited to judge whether this message fulfills the promise and goal to provide a good explanation of the well-known questions and answers that come from both sides of the discussion.
Among those who believe that God created the earth, there are two sorts of belief about the age of the earth. Those who believe that the earth is young are commonly known as young earth believers, and their belief is called young earth creationism, but those who believe that the earth is old are commonly called old earth believers. To describe the reasons that are commonly presented by one sort of believer or the other, this message identifies them with those names. More information about these identities will be provided later.
Chapter 1 of the book of Genesis describes what happened when God created the earth. It says that He created it in six days, and on the seventh day He rested. For each one of the first six days, it says “there was evening, and there was morning, the first day” and again except replacing the word “first” with “second” and “third” and so on.
The simplest interpretation of those words is that each of the six days were only 24 hours long. After that, the bible adds a few more thousand years to the age of the earth by providing the genealogy of a few men who lived on the earth. Based upon that evidence, we may say that the earth is only a few thousand years old, which is very young in comparison to the other belief. Those who believe that each of the six days in which God created the earth were only 24 hours long are the young earth believers.
Before the discovery of the physical evidence of the age of the earth and universe, there was no reason to question the simplest interpretation of the word of God regarding the amount of time that He spent creating all things. For that reason, before the discovery of the physical evidence, all of the believers were young earth believers, and they didn’t even have that name because they had no question about the age of the earth.
However, in this age, the question about the age of the earth is well known, and the believers must have an answer to the question. The answer to the question depends on what sort of evidence is included in the process that leads to the answer of choice.
In Romans 1:20-21, the word of God tells us “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
So, the nonbelievers are accountable for having ignored the evidence that God has provided to them to make known His power and divine nature which have been clearly seen since the creation of the world. So, because the nonbelievers are accountable for having ignored the evidence, the believers also should not ignore that evidence, especially when presenting a reason for faith to a nonbeliever who is confused by Satan’s deception about that evidence.
Now if we do not ignore the physical evidence and we also do not ignore the word of God, then we must search for a way to understand the word of God in a way that does not contradict the physical evidence which He has also provided. Fortunately, it is not difficult to find a way to understand the word of God in a way that does not contradict the physical evidence. It is called day age creationism, and it is usually the first defense that is offered by an old earth believer. It explains why in the record of creation, the word day may be understood to mean age.
The book of Genesis was first written in Hebrew at a time when there were very few words in that language. The English language has about 250,000 words, but Hebrew had only about 25,000 words which is why those fewer words had many more possible meanings. The Hebrew word “yom” was used to identify a period of 24 hours beginning at sunset or a day not including the night or an age or a period of time while certain events happened or a time when a certain event happened or other possible meanings.
The word “yom” was originally translated to other languages at a time when evidence about the age of the earth was not known, and at that time, it was translated to the sort of word which specifies a period of 24 hours, and at this time, the translation is stuck while men debate about translation, but it should have been translated to age.
However, in response to an explanation about day age creationism, a young earth believer may object by pointing out that the creation record states that for each day of creation, there was also an evening and morning, but the translation of a “yom” as an age does not account for the words evening and morning.
That is a powerful defense for believing that the earth is young, and the old earth believers usually ignore this issue. For that reason, the evenings and mornings of creation would be a good enough reason to believe that the earth is young, if only there was no physical evidence or if only it were not so abundant.
However, the previous section of this message explained how and why much of the evidence of the age of the earth was produced by work that was not motivated by religious or antireligious or political purposes. It was motivated by the pursuit of knowledge to support the pursuit of honest profit. Those who paid for the pursuit of that knowledge required truth to support the production of material products for sale to the public. How is it possible for the earth to be a few thousand years old, regardless of the evidence of its age which has been produced by that sort of work?
One possible answer to the question is to say that no other evidence can outweigh the word of God. The word of God is without error. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary is in error. Actually, that is a good answer in favor of believing that the earth is young when a believer searches inward for peace of mind regarding this troublesome topic, and it is a good answer in favor of believing that the earth is young when the discussion is between two believers or when a sermon message is given by a preacher to a congregation of believers.
However, for the nonbelievers who ask why does the word of God contradict the physical evidence of the age of the earth, that answer is an effective failure because its effect is that it fails to close the issue of the age of the earth and enable proceeding with discussion about the more important issues about our reason for faith and why we need salvation and how God offers it to us, or it fails to enable discussion about the biggest error in the theory of evolution which is its lack of evidence that life can evolve from lifeless material.
On the other hand, in response to the same question, an old earth believer may say to the nonbeliever “God created the earth in 6 days, but those days were not 24 hours long, and the bible does not say that they were 24 hours long, and so it does not contradict the evidence that the earth is very old. If you would like, I can explain why that is true, but I believe that it would be better for you if we discuss the more important matters which are your need for salvation and God’s offer to provide it.”
In response to the question “Why does the word of God contradict the physical evidence?”, an old earth believer may say that each day was an age, and the evenings and mornings are figures of speech. The word of God has many figures of speech, and the physical evidence is enough to prove that the evenings and mornings are a figure of speech for the beginning and ending of each of the days that mean ages.
In response to that answer, a young earth believer may object by presenting a rhetorical question such as the following. If the evenings and mornings are figures of speech, then what do the figures of speech mean, and where is the evidence that such meaning is true? Indeed, we should not declare that a scripture is a figure of speech for no reason other than to enable the interpretation of our choice, and a good well-known answer to that question is not available, although it is worthy of investigation.
To continue the objection, a young earth believer may point out that men should not change the meaning of the word of God to make it say whatever they please, and yet that is what the old earth believers have done. Young earth believers and old earth believers have a good reason to reject a change of belief about the meaning of the word of God because changes of belief about the meaning of His word are one of the primary means of developing new sorts of belief which may impair or prevent the salvation of those who believe.
In response to the objection, an old earth believer may point out that forbidding a change to the belief about the meaning of the word of God is based on the assumption that its meaning was understood properly in the first place, and that is what the young earth believers have assumed, and they have no proof that the assumption is true. Many years ago, men believed the literal meaning of the record of creation because they had no reason to believe otherwise, but that does not prove that they were right, and it does not prove that we must not change from what men believed in the past after we learn more.
In response to the question “Why does the word of God contradict the physical evidence?” a young earth believer may answer by stating that “God created the heavens and the earth with an appearance of age that is much older than its true age.” The physical evidence appears to show that the earth is old due to the appearance of age that God has created within His work.
That is a powerful defense of the word of God because it enables the believer to avoid protesting scientific evidence of the age of the earth and stars while continuing to support the belief that the word of God is without error. It also does not ignore the evenings and mornings.
However, the statement that “God created the heavens and the earth with an appearance of age that is much older than its true age” presents the impression that God has lied to us by creating fake evidence of history that never happened so that it appears to be older than its true age. Therefore, one may object by saying that this cannot be correct because God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).
However, that form of limiting the hand of God would require that God cannot perform any miracle at all because every miracle creates evidence that the impossible is possible, and no man can stand in judgment over God and call Him a liar. Therefore, a miracle of appearance is not a lie.
However, the bible does not say that God did that sort of miracle when creating the heavens and the earth, and it is not the sort of truth that builds our trust. Therefore, before accepting such a statement as truth, men are entitled to require an acceptable answer to the following critical question. “Why did God create fake evidence of history that never happened?”
The first and most well-known answer to that critical question is that “God did it because it was necessary to support life on earth”, and the best example of that necessity is the creation of Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state because they would not have been able to survive as infants when there was no woman to care for them. Also, the people and creatures needed plants to eat and oxygen to breathe immediately after they were created rather than waiting for the seeds to grow into gardens and trees and produce oxygen.
Later in this message, a second answer to that critical question will be considered, and it will be free from the problems of the first answer which will be examined next.
The first answer to the critical question would be an acceptable answer if there were no significant exceptions to the statement that all types of physical evidence of the age of God’s creation are necessary to support life on earth. However, that statement begs for examination of the physical evidence to see if it is all necessary to support life on earth, and the following examination of evidence reveals that fossil fuel and the stars are abundant evidence of age that is not necessary to support life on earth.
Fossil fuel is not necessary to support life on earth, and we have abundant contact with it, more so than any other evidence of age, and it appears to include the oldest evidence of anything that has ever lived on the earth. It is not necessary to support life on earth because for thousands of years after God created Adam and Eve, life on earth worked well enough to continue without men using a substantial amount of fossil fuel.
About 200 years ago, men began to become dependent on fossil fuel to support transportation, heating, electricity and industries, and in this age, many would lose life without it, but that is the effect of the work of men rather than God who created it, and life on earth could continue to work well without men using it if men redesign and rebuild their tools for acquiring and storing energy. The recent efforts to stop using fossil fuel cannot eliminate the significance of what has happened in the last 100 years.
We have abundant contact with fossil fuel because it consumes a large portion of our money by requiring us to purchase it or pay others to purchase it many times per year. Therefore, we cannot deny its existence. We purchase it directly to empower automobiles and home heaters and/or we pay others to purchase it by paying for transportation, electricity and the products and services of industries that require transportation, heating and electricity to support their production processes and services.
Therefore, fossil fuel is abundant evidence that disproves the statement that “God did it because it was necessary to support life on earth.” Therefore, if we acknowledge that fossil fuel appears to be very old, then it disproves the statement that it was created during Noah’s flood or 100 hours before the creation of Adam and Eve because it appears to be hundreds of millions of years older than either one of those two cases.
One could avoid the need to defend the statement that fossil fuel is necessary to support life on earth by stating that fossil fuel appears to be and truly is only a few thousand years old because it was created during Noah’s flood or for some other reason.
However, that statement would contradict the statement that “God created the heavens and the earth with an appearance of age that is much older than its true age,” and that contradiction would eliminate the powerful defense that avoids protesting scientific evidence by acknowledging that the physical evidence appears to be millions of years old, even if it is truly a few thousand years old.
Without that powerful defense, one who states that fossil fuel appears to be only a few thousand years old would be missing technical analysis and data to support a technical conclusion about the evidence of age, and that evidence of age does not depend on the evidence of evolution or so called evidence of evolution.
Even if technical analysis and data are provided, then the listening nonbelievers who hear that statement have no reason to trust the technical credibility of one who makes that statement nor the credibility of the technical source to which one may point for more info because they have abundant access to many sorts of technical nonsense in this age.
That problem of missing technical analysis and data is the reason that demands the powerful defense that avoids protesting physical evidence by acknowledging that the physical evidence appears to be millions of years old, but that defense would be eliminated by stating that fossil fuel appears to be only a few thousand years old.
The stars are also abundant evidence of the age of God’s creation, and life on earth does not depend on them. One could state that the stars appear to be old because according to Genesis 1:14-18, on the fourth day, God made the sun and the moon and the stars, and He made them for the purpose of telling signs and seasons. Certainly, the sun and the moon fulfill that purpose, and the closest stars may be helpful if one studies them carefully.
However, the most distant galaxies are useless for telling seasons because they are too far away to be seen by an unaided human eye, and yet they appear to be the oldest evidence of all. Regarding signs, if the galaxies are as old as they appear to be, then they are God’s signs which tell us the early history of His creation, and they are signs of the enormity of His power. Otherwise, they would be His signs which tell us fake evidence of history that never happened and have no apparent purpose, or one could deny the existence of the evidence.
The preceding study of reasons and evidence has shown that the statement that “God created the heavens and the earth with an appearance of age that is much older than its true age” leads to the critical question of “Why did God create fake evidence of history that never happened?” which leads to the well-known answer which states that “God did it because it was necessary to support life on earth.” However, that answer is dis-proven by comparing it with the abundant evidence of fossil fuel and stars which do not support life on earth.
However, consideration of the concept of the appearance of age is not finished. The preceding problems can be overcome by providing a different answer to the critical question, and that answer will be examined soon, and the evidence of that difference of appearance is provided by the word of God.
An old earth believer may point out that 2 Peter 3:8 tells us "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (NIV). And that proves that the definition for the word day should not be applied so strictly regarding the Lord’s reckoning of time in His word.
However, a young earth believer may object by saying that 2 Peter 3:8 is in a context that is not related to the subject of creation, which makes it irrelevant for the subject of creation.
A young earth believer may also point out that even if a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, then the six days are like six thousand years, which are far too few to reach the billions of years that are required for the old earth believer to show how the six days of God’s creation could be equal to the physical evidence of the age of the earth.
Six Days in the Sight of the Lord
So far, this message has explained why day age believers and young earth believers are in a dead lock, and the listening nonbelievers are a hung jury. Now let us consider new answers to old questions which can upset the dead lock and save some of the jurors. The plan is to provide good answers to the tough questions while staying on the topic of those questions rather than avoiding the questions by outweighing them with non sequiturs.
The earth and the universe appear to be very old. How is it possible for God to create the universe and the earth with an appearance of age that is far greater than what He said and yet, let there be no deception at all? 2 Peter 3:8 tells us "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (NIV), and the context of those words is not related to the creation, but that is not the end of it.
When Peter wrote those words, he said “but do not forget this one thing, dear friends” because he was telling them about something that was already known before he wrote it. He was referring to Psalm 90:1-6 which provides a much better foundation for answers to the tough questions that are commonly presented by the believers of young earth creation. Psalm 90 is a record of the prayer of a man to the Lord. The book of Psalm was collected by the Israelites who say that Moses was the author of Psalm 90, and he is also the author of Genesis. Following is a quotation of the first six versus of Psalm 90.
(NIV Psalm 90:1) Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. (2) Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (3) You turn people back to dust, saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.” (4) A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (5) Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— they are like the new grass of the morning: (6) In the morning it springs up new, but by evening it is dry and withered.
The main subject of Psalm 90 is mourning the wrath of God which He pours out upon us by destroying us and our work as the penalty for our sins according to Genesis 3:17-19, and it includes a request for wisdom to enable us to make the best of our few years. The book of Psalm is a book of hymns, and Psalm 90 is a sad one.
The main subject of Psalm 90 is introduced by making a comparison between how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man. The comparison begins in verses 1 and 2 which lists three periods of time which the Lord has seen or will see and which no man has seen more than a small fraction. They are “all generations” and the creation and “from everlasting to everlasting.” The creation is identified by “the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world.”
The first and last items on that list are certainly long periods of time, and the creation happened a long time ago, although these verses do not say that the creation took a long time or short. Verse 3 switches to the opposite side of the comparison by describing the destruction of man according to Genesis 3:19 as evidence of the short lifetime of man.
Therefore, Psalm 90:1-3 makes a comparison between how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man, and the creation is within the comparison, even if men dispute about how it fits into the comparison.
After comparing how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man in verses 1-3, verse 4 makes another comparison of the same contrast by comparing a thousand years to a day or a watch in the night. Therefore, the creation is in the context of Psalm 90:4 because Psalm 90:1-3 and verse 4 are both making a comparison between how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man, and the creation is within the comparison that is made in verses 1-3.
After comparing how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man in Psalm 90:1-3, verse 4 makes another comparison of the same contrast, and then verses 5-6 make another comparison of the same contrast by comparing the life span of a man to the time span from morning to evening.
Therefore, the creation is in the context of Psalm 90:5-6 because Psalm 90:1-3 and verse 4 and verses 5-6 are all comparing the same thing which is how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man, and the creation is within the comparison that is made in verses 1-3. The importance of verses 5-6 will be discussed later in this message.
Regarding the objection that may state that a thousand years are not enough to reach the billions of years that are specified by the physical evidence that the creation is billions of years old, the discussion about that subject may be found in this message in the section under the title of “Figurative or Literal Interpretation of a Thousand Years”.
If one examines the comparisons of long times vs short times in Psalm 90:1-6 with an assumption that the creation took place within a relatively brief period, then that assumption may lead to four comparisons of long times vs short rather than three. Those four comparisons would be (1) all generations vs the six standard days of creation, (2) “from everlasting to everlasting” vs the life span of a man who returns to dust, (3) a thousand years vs a day or a watch in the night, and (4) the life span of a man vs one period from morning to evening.
That choice of assumption has no effect on the last two comparisons which still include a thousand years and an evening and a morning, and the other comparisons still include the creation. Neither choice of assumption can prove the age of the creation by placing it on one side of the comparison or the other, and neither can separate the creation from the list of comparisons which are a common context of Psalm 90:1-6. Therefore, that scripture allows either choice of assumption to conform to the word of God. It is necessary to examine other evidence to determine which choice is correct.
Furthermore, if the universe was created in six days in the sight of the Lord, then either assumption may be correct, depending on whether one describes what the Lord saw when He did it or what men see when they look at the evidence of what He did.
Psalm 90:1 says, “Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations,” which makes it clear that the writer has recorded a prayer to the Lord. Therefore, if we speak to each other about the Lord rather than pray to Him, then in Psalm 90:4, we may replace “in Your sight” with “in the sight of the Lord”, and in that case, it tells us that a thousand years in the sight of the Lord are like a day that has just gone by or like a watch in the night. Peter confirmed that fact when (in 2 Peter 3:8) he identified the Lord when he referred to Psalm 90:4 by saying that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years”.
Now after examining inner content and context, consider what these verses can tell us about the creation. The Lord God saw the formation of His own creation. The Genesis record of creation is His record of His own work according to His own sight, and men did not see it. Therefore, all of the days and nights and evenings and mornings of creation were all in His sight, and that is the sort of sight that Psalm 90:4 is talking about when it tells us that a thousand years in the sight of the Lord are like a day that has just gone by or like a watch in the night.
Now recall the question which led to the examination of Psalm 90:1-6. How is it possible for God to create the universe and the earth with an appearance of age that is far greater than what He said and yet, let there be no deception at all? The answer is that according to Psalm 90:1-6, a thousand years in His sight are like a day that has just gone by, and like a watch in the night. So according to the way He saw it, it took only 6 days, and He recorded it according to the way He saw it, but according to the way we see it, it took much longer, and the physical evidence shows more detail about what we can see with our eyes and tools that enhance our perception. Therefore, the appearance of age is due to the difference between His perception of time and ours.
Regarding the appearance of age that was explained earlier in this message, the critical question was “Why did God create fake evidence of history that never happened?” and the well-known answer to that question is “God did it because it was necessary to support life on earth,” but based upon the interpretation of Psalm 90 that is provided in this message, the new answer to the critical question should be “God did not create fake evidence of history that never happened, but for us, it appears that it took much longer than it took for God to create it.”
That new answer eliminates the problem with any sort of evidence that appears to be very old and is not necessary to support life on earth such as fossil fuel and stars which were explained earlier in this message, and the new answer eliminates the cause for objection to the impression of stating that God has lied by creating fake evidence of history that never happened, and the evidence of that difference of appearance is provided by the word of God in Psalm 90 rather than providing a reason that was conceived by men.
After correcting those problems, that answer maintains the powerful defense of the word of God because it enables the believer to avoid protesting scientific evidence of the age of the earth and stars while continuing to support the belief that the word of God is without error.
Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” This makes it clear that the description of the Lord’s perception of time applied to the past as well as the future. Depending on the version, the choice of words in verse 4 to describe a day are “a day that has just gone by” or “yesterday when it is past” or something like that. It describes a day in the past, and verse 2 also mentions the creation in the past, but the words “from everlasting to everlasting” identify both past and future. Therefore, according to Psalm 90:4, a thousand years are like a day in the past or the future. Peter confirmed that fact when (in 2 Peter 3:8) he quoted from Psalm 90:4 by saying that “a day is like a thousand years” regarding our waiting for the second coming of Christ in the future.
Regarding evenings and mornings, in case an answer to the following question is required, the answer is provided here. “Why must we transfer the 1000 years that are like a day onto the evenings and mornings in the record of creation?” The answer is that 1000 years are like a day, and every day is a period from morning to evening. Therefore, 1000 years are like a period from morning to evening which is a day.
If there were only one “evening and morning”, then one could question whether a period of an “evening and morning” is the same as a “period from morning to evening”. However, in general, every “period from morning to evening” is between an “evening and a morning.” Therefore, if we may apply the general principle to the creation, then there were at least 5 “periods from morning to evening” between the 6 “evenings and mornings.” So at least 5 of the 6 were like 1000 years.
Furthermore, in the record of creation, each of the 6 “evenings and mornings” included a “day” which was like 1000 years. That confirms the preceding answer to the question about the order of evenings and mornings, and it fills in the last “period from morning to evening” to make a total of 6. Therefore, each evening and morning included a day which was like a thousand years.
It is possible to increase the number of years that are like an evening and morning from 1000 years to a higher number by including consideration of nights. At the time when Psalm 90 was written, the definition of a watch in the night was that it was a fourth of a night. In other words, 1 night = 4 watches in the night. If we apply the fact that 1000 years are like each watch in the night, then the result is that 4000 years are like a night.
If we add the nights to the days, then 5000 years are like a night and a day which include an evening and a morning, but that complicated approach to a higher number would not strengthen the effective meaning of the conclusion that each evening and morning included a day which was like at least 1000 years.
Regarding the objection that may state that a thousand years are not enough to reach the billions of years that are specified by the physical evidence that the creation is billions of years old, the discussion about that subject may be found in this message in the section under the title of “Figurative or Literal Interpretation of a Thousand Years”.
Note that the simple answer to the question “Why must we transfer the 1000 years that are like a day onto the evenings and mornings in the record of creation?” is that “1000 years are like a day, and every day is a period from morning to evening. Therefore, 1000 years are like a period from morning to evening which is a day.”
Note that this answer is based on a collection of facts. The first fact is “1000 years are like a day,” and the second fact is “every day is a period from morning to evening,” and the collection of facts supports the conclusion that “1000 years are like a period from morning to evening which is a day.”
However, whenever two facts are collected to support a conclusion, those who disagree with the conclusion may object by saying that those facts should not have been collected because they are not related to one another for some reason, and there are many who may disagree with this conclusion about the evenings and mornings of creation.
However, the first problem with that objection is that it would be ignoring the fact that was pointed out earlier that in the record of creation, each of the 6 “evenings and mornings” included a “day” which was like 1000 years.
Furthermore, the second problem with that objection is that it would be ignoring Psalm 90:5-6, which states that a period from morning to evening is like far more than 24 hours, and it does not even mention a day while stating that fact. Therefore, there is no collection of facts, and there is no basis for an objection to the collection of facts. The discussion about Psalm 90:1-6 in this message began with an explanation of why all 6 verses are in the context of creation.
Psalm 90:5-6 states that the life span of a man is like a period from morning to evening, and Psalm 90:10 states that the life span of a man is 70 years or 80 if our strength endures. Therefore, Psalm 90 states that 70 or 80 years are like a period from morning to evening. That period is like far more than 24 hours.
Regarding the objection that may state that 70 years are not enough to reach the billions of years that are specified by the physical evidence that the creation is billions of years old, the discussion about that subject may be found in this message in the section under the title of “Figurative or Literal Interpretation of a Thousand Years”.
The fact that each evening and each morning was like a thousand years or 70 years is one of the most important points in this whole message. Unlike the belief in day age creation, this message does not avoid the evenings and mornings. The evenings and mornings were in the sight of the Lord. They were events that the Lord saw with His own perception of time, and He recorded them according to the way He saw them.
A believer of young earth creation may object to the use of Psalm 90:1-6 by pointing out that it is only one scripture and saying that we should not use one scripture to support such an important doctrine. However, the believer of young earth creation also uses only one scripture to support the opposite doctrine about the same important subject. The words “evening and morning” appear six times in the Genesis record of creation, but they all describe the same sort of event within the same scriptural message, and the only reason why the words appear six times is because the events happened six times.
The words “evening and morning” in the Genesis record of creation are the foundation of the best defense of young earth creation, but those words are in only one scripture, and Psalm 90:1-6 is only one scripture which supports the conclusion that each evening and each morning was like a thousand years. So, if we must count the number of scriptures about “evening and morning,” then they are one for one.
Furthermore, according to the record of creation, the sun was not formed until the fourth day, and for that reason, there is no need to require that all six of the days must have been 24 hours long including those that did not have the sun. More information about this subject is provided in this message in the section under the title of “Stars on the Fourth Day.”
According to Psalm 90:2, the subject of Psalm 90:1-6 includes creation. Psalm 90:4 states that a thousand years are like a day or a watch in the night in the sight of the Lord, and the evenings and mornings of creation were the transitions between the days and nights in the sight of the Lord which were each like a thousand years. Psalm 90:5-6 supports the same point about evenings and mornings without need for connections to days and nights. Therefore, there is no need to ignore or protest the physical evidence.
Of course, this theological reasoning based on Psalm 90:1-6 does not prove that the earth and universe are old, but it proves that they could be old in the sight of man without contradicting the word of God. That should enable us to consider the physical evidence of age which is embedded in the evidence of God’s creation which He has provided to us as evidence of His existence and power (Romans 1:20-21). The combination of those two facts is good enough to prove that the earth is old in the sight of man.
The summery of this theological reasoning is that each evening and morning or day of creation was an evening and morning or day in the sight of the Lord which was far more than 24 hours long in the sight of man. The earth is young in the sight of the Lord, and it is old in the sight of man. Genesis 1 is the Lord’s record of His work according to the way He saw it. The physical evidence is the evidence in the sight of man. The difference of appearance between the physical evidence and the record in Genesis 1 is due to the difference of perception of time between man and the Lord which is identified in Psalm 90:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:8.
Note that the method of reasoning that is presented by this message which leads to a belief that the earth is old does not depend on accepting the physical evidence of age as though it were some sort of infallible word like the word of God. It only depends on accepting that the evidence is strong enough to be worthy of searching for a way to understand the word of God in a way that is not contradicted by our understanding of the evidence of God’s work which He has provided to us, and the ultimate motive for the effort is to enable the salvation of the listening nonbelievers who would otherwise be discouraged by our ignorance of the evidence.
What shall we say about this to a listening nonbeliever? The answer is that the doctrine of day age creationism is best for the listening nonbeliever because it is less complicated than this doctrine of sight of the Lord creationism and because it is sufficient to navigate around the stumbling block regarding a perception of conflict between the word of God and the scientific evidence about the creation. That explanation is sufficient to enable proceeding to the more important subjects about salvation.
If a believer asks how could each of the six days have been an age while considering the fact that each day had an evening and a morning, then the believer has asked for a deeper level of understanding the word of God than what was necessary for the nonbeliever to begin a discussion about salvation. In that case, it is necessary to point out that the evenings and mornings are figures of speech. It was pointed out earlier in this message and it is pointed out here again that the word of God has many figures of speech, and the physical evidence is enough to prove that the evenings and mornings are a figure of speech for the beginning and ending of each of the days that mean ages.
That answer is true and simple, and it should be good enough unless the believer wishes to acquire a deeper understanding of the word of God, or unless the believer has enough knowledge about false doctrines to recognize that the same sort of explanation may be used to defend all sorts of false doctrines by eliminating inconvenient scriptures by declaring that the inconvenient scripture is a figure of speech. Such believers know that scriptural or historical evidence is required to explain why those words are a figure of speech and what the figure of speech actually means.
In that case, the believer has requested or demanded an explanation that requires a deeper understanding of the word of God regarding the subject of the age of the creation, and the believer has taken the position of a mature believer who is able to judge an interpretation of the scripture to see if the conclusion is supported by the word of God. In that case, this doctrine of sight of the Lord creationism provides the complete answer. A good answer to a tough question may be a tough answer. That is the position where this message fits.
Sight of the Lord creationism is like day age creationism, except that the ages are expressed as periods that are “like a thousand years,” and it includes evenings and mornings around each of those ages.
Sight of the Lord creationism is like saying that the evenings and mornings are figures of speech, except that it provides an explanation for what the figures of speech mean and what is the scriptural evidence for why they are figures of speech.
Sight of the Lord creationism is like appearance of age creationism, except that the appearance of age is due to the way we see time which is different from the way God sees time, and it explains the appearance of age based on scriptural evidence rather than depending on information that is lacking scriptural or physical evidence. Also, it does not require believing that God made evidence of things that never happened, and it does not avoid details in the evidence of age such as fossil fuel which contradict the explanation for why God made evidence of things that never happened.
For those reasons, sight of the Lord creationism shares features of the other sorts of belief that conclude that the earth is old. They are various forms of explanation of the same reason and conclusion, except that they support various levels of understanding the word of God, depending on the needs of the one who asks.
Figurative or Literal Interpretation of a Thousand Years
This message invites the reader to accept a figurative or literal interpretation of a thousand years. It begins with a justification for a figurative interpretation because it is the simplest to understand and explain, and then it proceeds into an explanation of the literal interpretation.
For a figurative interpretation, review the first four verses of Psalm 90.
(1) Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. (2) Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (3) You turn people back to dust, saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.” (4) A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Consider the words “from everlasting to everlasting” in verse 2. Those words are more than enough to include billions of years, and they are in the same verse with a brief description of the creation, and two verses later without changing the subject, verse 4 expresses the same principle while stepping down to “a thousand years” for a tangible measure of time, in case it is too hard to grasp the meaning of the words “from everlasting to everlasting”.
Therefore, the neighboring verse makes it clear that a thousand years are an example for the expression of a principle (effectively figurative) rather than a number for input to a test by calculator.
The figurative interpretation makes it easy to understand how a thousand years are enough to capture the currently available evidence of the age of God’s creation, but if there is any doubt about it, then it may lead to a difficult question. The question is “How far apart are the numbers?” The need for an answer to that question may be motivated by a concern that one may have stretched the meaning of the word of God too far by choosing to believe that it is figurative.
If the reason for a figurative interpretation is not enough to add one more year to a thousand years, then that question would be a rhetorical question for which there is no satisfactory answer, but if the question is part of a pursuit of understanding the word of God without ignoring the physical evidence of His creation, then it is worthy of an answer, and the answer requires evaluating the literal interpretation to compare it with the currently available physical evidence of the age of God’s creation.
This message will answer that question, and then it will provide evidence to support the answer. The question is “How far apart are the numbers?” The answer is that “to reach from the big bang to Adam and Eve in 6 days, God would only need to speak His literal word twice with a little emphasis (more precisely 2.1438 times)”. His literal word is much more powerful than what is obvious.
If the reason for a figurative interpretation is not enough to add one more year to a thousand years, then that answer can only produce an objection that requires scriptural evidence that God spoke twice, but if the question is part of a pursuit of understanding the word of God without ignoring the physical evidence of His creation, then there is reason to allow God to repeat Himself once without requiring Him to provide us with a detailed record of every word that He ever spoke (John 21:25).
Furthermore, in that answer, the frais “speak His literal word” is equivalent to “apply His literal power” because the subject is the power of His literal word. Therefore, in that context, refusing to consider God speaking twice would be equivalent to refusing to consider God applying His power twice.
Of course, that answer requires math to verify truth, and the math is summarized in the following figure which is followed by an explanation of each step. It begins with the answer, and then it converts the answer into numbers that can be verified with a hand-held calculator. Step 1 is a copy of the answer that was previously provided.
Step 2 states the literal interpretation by saying “1000 years are like 1 day”, and in the same format, it states the effect of the time span from the big bang to the creation of Adam and Eve in 6 days by saying “13.8 billion years are like 6 days”, and it includes the effect of God speaking more than once by including a superscript value of 2.1438 which means “to the power of 2.1438”. In that position, as an exponent, it includes the effect of God speaking or applying His power more than once.
The equal sign means that the value of the left side is equal to the value of the right side. If there were an error in this equation, for example if the value of 2.1438 were incorrect, then step 5 would fail to verify that the first and second calculations on that line produce results that are equal, and that would be a failure to verify that the two sides of the equation in step 2 are equal, but the steps that follow show that there is no such failure.
Step 3 replaces the words “are like” with division. Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 are statements that make a comparison between a long time and a short time by connecting them with the words “are like”, and the statement about 13.8 billion years in step 2 makes the same sort of comparison. By replacing the words “are like” with division, step 3 replaces those statements of comparison with calculations of how much is the long time greater than the short time according to those statements.
To make a comparison between a big value and a small value, we may say that “the big one is [some number of] times greater than the small one” where [that number] is produced by calculating the big one divided by the small one. Therefore, division calculates how much is the big one greater than the small one. The statements in step 1 and step 2 are making that sort of comparison about time.
If there is any objection to replacing the words “are like” with division in a reference to the word of God, then consider the fact that dividing by 1 does not affect the value of the number. That fact is obvious in step 5. Therefore, dividing by 1 does not affect the meaning of the word of God. In this case, the effect of division is that it enables keeping track of the units of time (years and days) to prepare for the coming steps.
Step 4 converts the units of years into days by replacing 1000 years with 1000 x 365 days and by replacing 13.8 billion years with 13.8 billion x 365 days. It does not change the amount of time that is described by the numbers and units of time. Therefore, it does not change the resulting value of what is enclosed by parentheses on either side of the equation.
Step 5 removes the units of days because whenever matching units (such as days and days) are on both sides of division, they always cancel out. If the days were not removed, then the calculation would produce a value with units of “days per day” which are effectively no units at all.
Step 5 also shows the calculation result at the far right. The first and second calculations on that row both produce the same result which is 840 billion after rounding to whole billions. Therefore, the first and second calculations on that row produce results that are equal to each other, and that verifies that the numbers are correct in the equation at step 2.
To verify the numbers, a scientific calculator can calculate X to the power of Y. The function key is shown as xy. Many cell phone calculators can switch to scientific calculator mode if they are turned sideways or if the proper setting is selected or if the proper app is acquired.
The calculation may be performed using the following steps.
- Enter 1000 x 365 ÷ 1 = which produces 365000
- While 365000 is still displayed, enter xy 2.1438 = which produces a result that is presented as 840,317,567,337 or 8.40318e11 (possibly with more digits after the decimal point).
- While that answer is still displayed, divide it by 1 billion by entering ÷ 1000000000 = which produces 840 (followed by more digits after the decimal point) which means 840 billion (after rounding to whole billions) because it was produced by dividing by 1 billion.
- Record or remember the number that is displayed, and then clear it.
- Enter 13.8 x 365 ÷ 6 = which produces 839.5 which means 839.5 billion because the input value of 13.8 is a factor of a billion, and rounding to whole billions produces 840 billion.
- The fact that steps 3 and 5 both produce 840 billion means that the two sides of the equation are equal. A greater precision of equality would require working with more digits on 2.1438.
If a scientific calculator is not available, then the effect of the calculation can be nearly viewed by using the power of 2 rather than the power of 2.1438. In that case, replace step 2 (shown above) with a calculation of 365000 x 365000 = which produces 133,225,000,000 which may be displayed as 1.33225e11. After that, step 3 will produce 133.225 which means 133 billion after rounding to whole billions. So, the power of 2 produces 133 billion, and the power of 2.1438 produces 840 billion.
For the case of Psalm 90:5-6,10 which was mentioned earlier regarding its connection to evenings and mornings, the previous figure may be modified by replacing 1000 with 70 and replacing 2.1438 with 2.7055 to produce the same result. Note that 2.7055 is only 26% more than 2.1438.
This analysis of the numbers of the literal interpretation was provided for the purpose of revealing how enormous God’s power is, even in the literal form, and for the sake of showing how small is the value of an objection to the number. This analysis presents an encouraging view of God’s power and glory by assuming that His power is exponential rather than linear, and it does not digress by explaining the difference, but for the sake of supporting objection to the number, one could demonstrate the difference by presenting an alternative analysis with a discouraging view of God’s power and glory by assuming that His power is linear.
The problem with showing the figurative interpretation first is that the reader may forget about it after reading about the literal interpretation. Therefore, if the literal interpretation is not satisfactory, then the reader is encouraged to review the information about the figurative interpretation once again. Remember its presentation about the words “from everlasting to everlasting” and how they are describing the same subject as a thousand years.
In the following figure, the literal interpretation of a thousand years is shown in graphical form. Each step on that hand scale is a factor of 10 except for the first three steps which are factors of 7 x 7 x 7.45 which produce 365. On a scale like that, a thousand years are halfway to a billion years.
Time Scale in the Sight of the Lord
The complete analysis of this subject is in The Trouble with Numbers.
Stars on the Fourth Day
Genesis 1:16 states that on the fourth day, “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” Note that it does not say that God created all of the stars on the fourth day. He could have made some of the stars at an earlier time, and the presence of the word “also” in verse 16 implies some liberty regarding the order of events as though it were saying “By the way, He also made the stars.” Verse 16 is the first verse that lists all the objects that are currently visible in outer space. For that reason, the stars are listed along with the sun and the moon, but it does not necessarily require that the stars were all created on the fourth day.
Genesis 1:1 tells us that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (time, space and mass), and He said “Let there be light” (electromagnetic energy and other forms of energy that can be exchanged with it). The currently available scientific evidence indicates that the combination of all those ingredients of His creation (described in parentheses) initiated the early formation of stars in a manner that is currently called the big bang.
However, the stars did not all appear immediately after that event. The formation of stars is a very long process, and it is still going on today. So, the stars were being formed on the first day and the fourth day and between and beyond. The sun is one of those stars. This interpretation accounts for the formation of the sun and stars on the fourth day without contradicting the currently available evidence of the age of God’s creation including the stars.
This interpretation also explains why there was no definition of a day based upon the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun or greater light which did not exist until the fourth day, and for that reason, there is no need to require that all six of the days must have been 24 hours long.
The explanation that follows involves a concept that is here called the theory of a dusty third day. This concept is not intended to be doctrinal belief, and it is not necessary to support the preceding explanation about stars on the fourth day. It is only a suggestion for understanding a scriptural mystery.
Note that the record of creation does not say that God made the sun on the fourth day. It says that He made a greater light and a lesser light, and we assume that it means that He created the sun and the moon on the fourth day, but on the third day, God must have provided some source of light for the plants and trees. It may have been some other source of light, or it may have been the sun surrounded by an interplanetary cloud of dust which reflected light from the sun on all sides of the earth. The second case is the theory of a dusty third day.
To continue the theory of a dusty third day, on the fourth day, God finished forming the sun by cleaning up the dust so that the day was separated from the night. Note that the latest scientific evidence indicates that stars are surrounded by dust in the early days of their formation.
To continue the theory of a dusty third day, we may say that from the perspective of one who stands on the earth and looks at the heavens, the sun and the moon and the stars became clearly visible on the fourth day after God cleaned up the dust. So, they became meaningful as signs of seasons. This explains why the creation of the greater light and lesser light and stars are described as events that happened on the fourth day.
Evidence by Testimony of the Witness
The listening nonbeliever may be satisfied that the bible record of creation could be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the currently available evidence about the age of the earth, but that alone may not be enough to convince the listening nonbeliever that there is a God or that He created the earth.
In a court of law, the judge or jury may consider the testimony of a witness as well as the physical evidence and the evidence in the record. Perhaps, if God would take the witness stand in our court of law and defend His words and prove His mighty power, then the listening nonbeliever would have no reason to doubt the word of God, including His record of how He created the universe and the earth and life.
Actually, God did take the witness stand by sending His son to earth for a few years. The son of God lived on earth among men (John 1:1-5, John 1:14, Matt 3:13-17, Matt 17:1-5), and He told men who He is (Matt 16:13-17, Mark 14:57-64, John 8:12-59), and He proved it by performing miracles (Matt 4:23-25, Matt 9:27-34, Matt 12:22-23, Matt 15:29-31, Mark 1:40-42, Mark 10-46-52, John 9:1-41, John 11:1-44), and He defended His father’s word, but they gave Him an unfair trial and killed Him (Luke 23:1-46). The greatest miracle of all that He performed was that he rose from the dead (Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20).
He did not talk about the age of the earth because there was no need for Him to talk about the age of the earth at that time, but He said that He is the son of God, and He made many references to that part of the word of God which is now known as the Old Testament and includes the record of creation. That made it pointless for men to ask Him “Is there a God?” or “Did God create the earth?”, and it would also be pointless for us to ask Him the same questions today. Therefore, the one who came to earth and performed miracles has testified about the creation by testifying about Himself.
In the future, He will return, but men will not be able to put Him on trial again, and He will eventually put us all on trial (Matt 13:24-43, Matt 25:31-46, Rev 20:11-15). In the meantime, our path depends on whether we choose to believe Him or not (John 12:46-48). A careful review of the whole testimony would probably be enough to convince the listening nonbeliever to believe.
Our security depends on more than just a belief that there is a God and that He created all things. If our knowledge about the age of the earth and stars does not obstruct our path, then there is still another obstruction which is far greater than all the others. Our sins are the primary reason why we are separated from God, and His mercy is not an automatic consequence of our belief in Him (Isaiah 59:1-3, Romans 6, James 2:19).
God has offered to show mercy to those who accept His offer, and He explained what that means in His word. Because this message is about creation, it will not dive into detail about how to be saved, but a few words are provided here before closure.
There is more confusion in this world about how to be saved than there is about the creation. Therefore, it is necessary to seek help from a teacher to understand how to find salvation, but it is also dangerous because a teacher may be deceived or may be a deceiver. Therefore, it is necessary to test the teacher.
First, ask the teacher what source of information is the word of God or infallible truth. If anyone teaches that the word of any man or any book other than the bible is the word of God or infallible truth, then that message is a deception.
Next, ask the teacher who is Jesus Christ. If any teacher presents a special interpretation of the bible as evidence to support a certain message, then caution is necessary when listening to such a message, and if that message depresses the glory of Jesus Christ below that which is evident in the bible without that special interpretation, then that message is a deception.
If the previous questions produce deceptive or non-informative answers, then look for another teacher. Otherwise, beware of deception from those who claim that the bible is the word of God and teach something else. Compare the message to the word of God to see if that is really what it says.
Ask what is necessary to be saved, and do not follow teachers who don’t answer that question with clear instructions. Following is the advice about that question that is offered in this message. Hopefully, the link still works.
Grace and peace to all of you in the search for truth.
From your brother in Christ, Ralph Griffin, Sep 24, 2024
.