Compelling Reasons to Remain Loyal to a Young-Earth Interpretation of Genesis 1

Many in the Christian community are under enormous pressure to capitulate in their views on God in general and the origins of the universe in particular because of arguments made by those in the naturalistic scientific community and its sympathizers within the church.

One example of this phenomenon is witnessed in Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk. In his work, Falk’s desire is for the church to come to peace with science and, by proxy, assimilate its interpretations of passages like Genesis 1 into what fits naturalistic theories of the universe’s age (Falk, 2004). However,

Falk fails at convincing the educated believer that his solution is tenable because of unfortunate missteps in his hermeneutics, underwhelming rejoinders to alternative viewpoints, and undeveloped discussions concerning pertinent matters.

He also fails at impressing the naturalist by slipping into what atheist scientists hate most (something akin to resorting to the “God of the gaps”).

Though this book intended to build a bridge between two competing worldviews, one wonders if Falk does not polarize those in their respective camps even further away from each other, disappointing Christians with sloppy exegesis and offending naturalists by sprinkling God on top of their unguided evolutionary system.

It would appear that the question plaguing the church and the academy today is one of authority. Does our interpretation of the Bible need to come to peace with science or does science need to come to terms with the Bible? Truly, both can work together and each can inform the other, but not in equal ways. For instance, anyone who is more committed to the Bible than they are to interpretations of scientific findings is not going to be convinced by Falk’s work (or others) to trade a robust interpretation of Genesis 1-3 for a highly metaphorical one in an effort to accommodate millions/billions of years (an old-earth view). And these should not believe they are compelled to do so.

This paper will argue that believers who adhere to a more literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and, by proxy, affirm a young-earth creation, are not only within their right to do so, but are epistemically sound in making this choice given the superiority of a robust interpretation of special revelation over and above data collected from general revelation delineated in a largely naturalistic worldview.

To this end, this work will juxtapose the following: the nature of special revelation and general revelation (a theological consideration), the consistency witnessed in the hermeneutical enterprise and the variety observed in the conclusions/allowances witnessed in the scientific community (a methodological consideration), and the pre-modern acceptance of theology in the academia with the 19-20th century’s under-appreciation of theology’s role (a historic consideration).

In each of these discussions, the latter concept/idea will be exposed as inferior to, or at least suspect in light of the former option. This paper assumes that the reader has adopted the Christian worldview.

In other words, the aim of this work is not to convince the atheist naturalist of the Christian worldview on creation. Instead, this work hopes to explain why young-earth Christians are justified in holding this view and seeks to call Christians who adopt an old-earth view to reevaluate their position. If successful, young-earth creationists will be encouraged to hold fast to their interpretation of Genesis 1-3 in spite of being pressured to do otherwise.

Special Vs. General Revelation

The majority of Christians concede that God reveals himself through both special and general revelation. However, a robust understanding of these terms almost requires that one prioritize the former over the latter. Unfortunately, many under the pressure mentioned earlier, have become tempted to allow general revelation to usurp special revelation’s place. This is unfortunate, especially as it pertains to role the Scriptures play in one’s worldview.

Some, borrowing from principles found in 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16 argue the following,

“The Bible claims to be a book from God, a message with divine authority. Indeed, the biblical writers say they were moved by the Holy Spirit to utter His very words—that their message came by revelation so that what they wrote was breathed our (inspired) by God Himself” (Geisler, 2002; 1 Sam. 23:2; Isa. 59:12; Zech. 7:12; 1 Cor. 2:13; 14:37; Gal. 1:12; Rev. 1:1; 22:9).

To assign these qualities to the Bible is to be utterly consistent with what the Scriptures say about itself. In the Old Testament, the writers often claim to be speaking on God’s behalf with phrases like “Thus says the Lord,” “the Word of God came to me,” and “The Lord of God spoke unto…” (Isa. 1:11, 18; Jer. 2:3, 5; 34:1; Eze. 30:1; Lev. 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:1, 8, 19; 7:22). Also, in the New Testament, the Bible argues that it is the “Word of God” (Matt. 15:6; Rom. 3:2; 1 Pet. 1:23; Heb. 4:12). Therefore, the definition given above is, at the very least, in keeping with biblical claims. However, in order to avoid gross circularity on this point, one must investigate the evidences for the Bible’s uniqueness (compared to other ancient/spiritual works of literature).

Thankfully, historical-grammatical analyses provide plenty of positive evidences for the superiority of special revelation as preserved in the Scriptures. For instance, the Bible is utterly consistent in all of its doctrines (in spite of it being written over a 1500 year span by over 40 different authors). Concerning the myriad of manuscripts that have been preserved/discovered

(both original and early) Neil Lightfoot states,

“A large number of variations do exist in the manuscripts, but this number is ascertained by counting all the variants in all the manuscripts…Most variations are made up of minute details, either obvious scribal blunders or slight changes in spelling, grammar, and word-order. These are of no consequence to our text…A few variations present problems for our text, but all of them are not impossible to solve” (Lightfoot, 1963).

A few of these “variations” and their corresponding answers are worth mentioning. One of the more popular problems that skeptics believe undermine the legitimacy of the Bible includes the variations within the genealogies. However, even these discrepancies are not without an explanation.

For instance, Gary Rendsburg’s solution to this particular issue is capable of not only satisfying what is known of the origins of the people of Israel, but also what is true of the Scriptures themselves (Rendsburg, 1990). A more general complaint lodged by skeptics involves the question of how the God of the Old Testament compares to the God of the New Testament. Many believe that there are different ways in which the Divine relates to his people in different times (Barzun, 2000; Meier, 1990; Rizzuto, 1979). However, even those within the psychiatric community have been able to observe— through various means of psychoanalysis applied to the biblical narratives—the similar ways in which God interacted with his people in both testaments (Popp, 2003).

These two issues—the first particular and the second more general—illustrate that special revelation is utterly consistent in spite of perceived discrepancies.

A second point in favor of the uniqueness of special revelation, especially as it pertains to its status as an ancient document, incorporates the number of manuscripts available to test the contents therein. Lightfoot suggests that a conservative estimate of the textual documents that evidence the contents of Scripture, including manuscripts and versions, surpasses 20,000 (Lightfoot, 1963).

Compare this to the History of Thucydides which was written around 400B.C.—a work that has been passed down on the basis of 8 manuscripts—or the few writings left of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 100A.D.)—a series of works that has survived on the margin of two manuscripts. Perhaps this is why Sir Frederic Kenyon was compelled to say the following:

“The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one of other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world” (Kenyon, 1958).

No doubt this, alongside archaeological and historical evidences, is why so many even in the liberal community have a difficult problem arguing against certain biblical claims (Ehrman, 2012).

That the Bible is utterly consistent, thoroughly evidenced, and complimentary to historical analysis should not come as a surprise given what it says about itself—namely, that it is sourced in God. “If God cannot err, and the original text was breathed out by God, then it follows that the original text is without error” (Geisler, 2002).

This is why Augustine cautions Bible students thusly: “If we are perplexed by any contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.”

These considerations lend a great deal of credibility to special revelation. The Bible self-identifies as being sourced in the Divine, proves itself to be thoroughly consistent, has been checked against a mountain of manuscripts, and is not threatened against rigorous historical analysis.