Biblical Case for an Old Earth , livre ebook

A B IBLICAL C ASE for an O LD E ARTH
A B IBLICAL C ASE for an O LD E ARTH
DAVID SNOKE
2006 by David Snoke
Published by Baker Books a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakerbooks.com
Printed in the United States of America
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-for example, electronic, photocopy, recording-without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Snoke, David, 1961- A biblical case for an old earth / David Snoke. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 10: 0-8010-6619-0 (pbk.) ISBN 978-0-8010-6619-1 (pbk.) 1. Bible and geology. 2. Earth-Age. I. Title. BS657.S66 2006 231.7652-dc22
2006009543
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture is taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture marked NIV is taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION . NIV . Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Scripture marked NASB is taken from the New American Standard Bible , Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
The quote is from The Magician s Nephew by C. S. Lewis copyright C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. 1955. Extract reprinted by permission.
Contents
Preface
1. Starting Assumptions
2. The Scientific Case
3. The Biblical Case I: Animal Death
4. The Biblical Case II: The Balance Theme in Scripture
5. The Biblical Case III: The Sabbath
6. Concordantist Science
7. Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2
8. The Flood of Noah
9. Implications for Theology
Appendix: A Literal Translation of Genesis
Notes
Preface
This book was instigated by a debate within the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), my own denomination, in regard to the orthodoxy of the old-earth position. Young earthers say that the earth and all of creation is at most ten or twenty thousand years old, essentially the same age as the history of modern humans. Old earthers say that the earth is billions of years old, in agreement with the assumptions of modern geology. Some Christians insist that the old-earth position is theologically heretical, or at least heterodox, and some in my denomination want to deny pastors the right to preach if they do not hold to a young-earth view. The debate is not restricted to my denomination, however. Unfortunately, this issue threatens to divide Christians-many well-known seminary professors and teachers such as Meredith Kline and Michael Horton adhere to an old-earth view, while notable figures such as John MacArthur, for whom I have great respect, have publicly called the old-earth position theologically liberal, or heterodox.
Theological liberalism does exist. We have seen a century of slide on almost every church doctrine. Because many Christians react so strongly against liberalism, however, sometimes leveling the charge of liberalism is an easy way to dismiss an opposing argument. Some Baptists dismiss those who baptize infants as liberal; Catholics who believe in the Latin rite dismiss those who believe in using the vernacular as liberal. This happens with more esoteric issues, as well: some people who believe in the eschatological doctrine of a pre-tribulational Rapture view all who disagree as liberal; within my own denomination, some have dismissed Presbyterian authors like R. C. Sproul and Francis Schaeffer as liberal because their writings do not conform to the doctrines of presuppositional apologetics expounded by Cornelius van Til. On many of these issues, however, Christians have learned that we can fellowship with people with whom we disagree on broad issues of interpretation of Scripture because we know that at least they share with us a strong view of the inerrancy and primacy of Scripture. Each of us must be convinced from Scripture, and often this means we must adopt a minority view for the sake of conscience, even if most conservatives believe otherwise.
In this book I argue that the old-earth position is a valid, conservative, and orthodox interpretation of the Bible. This may shock some people-the young-earth position is so equated with orthodoxy that when I say that I believe in an old earth, people have sincerely asked me if I also deny the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc. This is partly because theological liberals assume that the earth is old without even a debate and mock the young-earth position, so that people associate the old-earth view with theological liberalism. Perhaps, however, people also make this association because some who adhere to the young-earth view encourage it, thereby preventing their opponents from getting a fair hearing among conservatives.
In many people s eyes, I have probably lost before I begin, because no matter what I argue from the Bible, they will say, But you have come up with this just because you want the Bible to agree with science. I freely confess to this charge-I would not have studied this issue with as great interest had I not wanted to see whether a young-earth view was strictly necessary. I discuss the validity of such an approach in chapter 1. I hope by the end, however, that if readers have not been persuaded to agree with my views, they will at least agree that my arguments are biblical , a viable position in a debate among Christians (similar to that over infant baptism) and not wild-eyed mangling of the Scriptures.
Many of the proponents of the old-earth view adhere to a framework model of interpretation of Genesis 1; the framework model takes this chapter as essentially poetic, not giving any chronological information. This book presents the case for a day-age view that takes Genesis 1 as giving a real chronological sequence, but not necessarily of twenty-four-hour days. This position is too quickly dismissed by both sides, although many Christians who are trained scientists, such as Hugh Ross and Robert Newman, find this view very appealing.
I thank Bruce Rathbun, Michael Schuelke, and George Hunter for critical reading of this manuscript in its early stages, and for many profitable discussions, despite our disagreements.
1 Starting Assumptions
At the very outset, let me say that my experience in science has affected my interpretation of the Bible. For some people, this is a cardinal sin. This is one of the most important issues before us. Is it ever permissible to allow our experience to affect our interpretation of the Bible? Or should I strive to study the Bible in an interpretive vacuum, with no reference to any of my life experience? Is that possible?
To put it another way, it is very improbable that I ever would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if I had never studied science. If I had never studied science, I also probably would not have come up with the idea that everything is composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons, or that life is based on DNA, or many other things that I believe. At first blush, one might say, So what? There are many things about the natural order that God has seen fit to let us discover by experience, which he does not discuss in the Bible. Most people have no trouble affirming that the theories of electrons, protons, and DNA, while not in the Bible, are compatible with the Bible.
The difference between an old-earth view and the theory of electrons is that the Bible talks directly about the origin of the world in several places, while it does not talk much about the composition of things. In saying that the earth is millions of years old, and at the same time saying that I affirm the Bible is true and has no errors, I must argue that those places where the Bible speaks on origins are compatible with belief in an old earth. With electrons and protons, I do not have to compare my theories to any particular Bible passages.
I believe that an old-earth view is compatible with the Bible. Nevertheless, I admit that my interpretation is a possible one, not an obvious one. The question that lies before us is therefore, Is it ever legitimate to prefer a possible interpretation over a simpler, obvious interpretation, based on our experience? I will argue that it is often legitimate.
Before making this argument, I want to make clear that there are also illegitimate ways of letting experience affect our interpretation of the Bible. First, some people might argue that when I say that science has affected my interpretation, what I really mean is that peer pressure has affected my interpretation. In other words, they might say that I have changed my interpretation of the Bible because it is unpopular among my colleagues. If they were right, my approach would be illegitimate, but I hope that they are wrong, and that I have not caved in to peer pressure. I will not argue that there have been no Christians who have capitulated to prevailing views for social reasons, nor will I argue that there is no anti-Christian social pressure among scientists. Many Christians in the sciences have capitulated, in my opinion, and many of us are familiar with the intolerant spirit of political correctness on our campuses, as expressed in such things as speech codes.
Some of us are familiar with pressure from the right, as well-from fundamentalists who use peer pressure to insist that anyone who rejects their view is liberal. All of us, including scientists, need to carefully distinguish between what are really facts, and what is merely the opinion of a lot of people. It is illegitimate to change our view of the Bible because we want a more popular interpretation.
At the same time, we should recognize that no view that says that