Special note: The interactive Bible website disagrees with the views of Hill & Carol Roberts and Rod Summers on the age of the earth and origins. If we have misrepresented their views in any way we will gladly delete, modify or recant this material. Click here to modify content of this page.

In an effort to be both fair and open you may contact Hill and Carol Roberts directly at:

1. Hill Roberts is not a theistic evolutionist. He rejects all notions of any transitions between different kinds of plants or animals.
2. Hill Roberts is not a "gap theorist". A gap theorist believes that God created the ecosystem of dinosaurs etc in Gen 1:1. Dinosaurs lived for millions of years the went extinct in Gen 1:2. Gap theorists all mistranslate Gen 1:2 "and the earth BECAME void and formless." For a complete refutation of the Gap theory we recommend "Unformed and Unfilled" by Weston W. Fields Click here to order.
3. Hill Roberts believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. For a powerful and convincing outline on the young Biblical age of the earth, CLICK HERE
4. Hill Roberts accepts the general evolutionary time table for the age of the earth and won't dispute dates generated by various dating processes. If evolutionists claim that such and such is x number of years old, Hill generally will accept the date. Hill generally accepts the dates of radio-metric dating as evidence of an old earth.
5. Hill Roberts believes that man has been on the earth for about 250,000 years. He said, "Cro-magnon and Neanderthal were both just ancient "races" of men. They are well documented by many whole skeletons dating back to 250,000-100,000 years ago; not that much older geologically than the dates derived from incomplete bible genealogies."
6. Hill Roberts is not neutral about the age of the earth in his seminars. In fact, he is a militant advocate of the old age of the earth and actively dissuades anyone who believes in young earth "flood geology". Carol Roberts in her efforts to teach children about the days of Genesis, takes active steps to refute the literal 6 day 24-hour view. Hill Roberts, is therefore actively leavening our children's minds to fully accept the theory of evolution that is taught in the public schools, even though the Carols both reject the theory of evolution.
7. Hill refers to young creationists as "bad theology" and "bad religion" and "preconceived religious traditions" and "faith-oriented belief". Hill has not understood that the scientific evidence actually better supports a young earth.
8. Regarding the creations story: "Genesis 1 & 2 was and still is the best God could do to explain it to us given our limited capabilities." Hill Roberts
9. Hill Roberts accepts the general evolutionary geologic column as truth. Yet as this chart shows, such in incompatible with both the theology of the origin of death and the simple literal narrative of 6 day creation in Genesis. in other words, when Christians attempt to make the standard geologic column fit into the Genesis creation account, evolutionists just laugh and are delighted that the Genesis account is 100% non-sense!

This chart reveals the flaws of any who attempt to harmonize the evolutionary geologic column with the Genesis account: Click on picture to see high resolution image Click on picture to see high resolution image

 

10. Hill Roberts teaches that several sections of the geologic column (Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic) contained unique sets of animals, different from the other sections because these animals represent change over time. He teaches that the geologic column clearly reflects a general progression from simple to complex over billions of years. We wonder how such a view would defend itself against naturalistic evolutionists who would observe the exact same thing: "change over time"? In fact the geologic column is a 1.5 mile high flood deposit that represents not change over time, but where animals lived when they died. (sea life at bottom, mammals at top).
11. Hill Roberts believes that the day Adam was created, Adam stood on top of 1.5 miles of fossil sediment containing fossil fuels like coal and oil.
12. Hill Roberts believes that an entire ecosystem of plants and animals went extinct millions of years before Adam was created. Thus dinosaurs were never intended to share the earth with man. Why then did God create dinosaurs in the first place? Hill teaches: "The dinosaurs and their geological period helped prepare the world for habitation. Certainly they prepared it for use by man today who depends heavily on the coal and oil deposits from the dinosaurs' strata." So we could have gas for our cars! Of course Hill doesn't realize that coal and oil can form in under 100 years!
13. I attended one Hill's seminars several years back. Hill Roberts did teach an old earth, as I recall following the general views taught by John Clayton in his *Does God Exist?* materials. Here is a quote from one of the teachers in the adult class while he was explaining their old-earth stance: "The Bible nowhere speaks of a 'creation week.'" from Steve Walker
14. Hill Roberts believes that between the 5th day and 6th day of creation, there were millions of years.
15. Hill Roberts rejects a global Noaic flood and believe in a local flood. At a minimum, he believes that the Bible does not require a global flood and that a local flood is a clear and viable option.
16. Hill Roberts accepts Stephen J Gould's theory called "punctuated equilibria". The only difference is that Hill believes that God created new plants and animals in a general sequence from simple to complex over billions of years in short spurts. Imagine Gould and Hill Roberts looking at the geologic column. Gould says, "hey look here fish evolved into reptiles" Roberts would say, "This where God first created reptiles." Hill attempts to find absolute agreement with atheistic evolutionists, only differing on why new species of plants and animals appear in the fossil record over billions of years sequenced from simple to complex.
17. Hill Roberts relies upon and quotes PROFUSELY other theistic evolutionists like John Clayton and Hugh Ross. (click to see their views). Hill Roberts has written articles for John Clayton's "Does God Exist" magazine.
18. Hill Roberts does not believe that God actually created anything within the 6 days of Genesis creation. Rather, these six days are where God merely "thought up the plan". Then it took millions of years for this plan to be implemented. Kind of like spending 6 days drafting a blueprint and "proclaiming" on each successive day a new aspect of the plan. Then taking 1 year to build the house.
19. Hill Roberts believes that science is a second witness in addition to the Bible for the origin of the earth and mankind. He says: "Most scientists accept only half the data, that from the natural arena. Likewise many Christians are unwilling to consider the natural data and only accept the other half -- Genesis. Both are only using half of what God has provided on the topic. Both are likely to err." Hill Roberts. Again he says, "God put all this technical stuff in an 'Appendix' called the creation itself."
20. Hill Roberts said, "the best reading [translation] of Genesis 1:2 could also be read as, 'And the earth became formless and void." Thus opening the door for "Gap theorists" who believe the "Jurassic ecosystem of the age of dinosaurs" was wiped out and became extinct "when the earth BECAME formless and void. Hill seems to reject the gap theory himself, but it is our opinion that he really finds no fault with their view and even considers it a possible option.
21. Hill Roberts believes that the days of creation are not 24 hour periods, but much longer.
22. Hill Roberts teaches that reptiles are not specifically included in any of the categories mentioned in the 6 days of creation. This allows for Hill to teach that dinosaurs were never part of day 6. But what about snakes, lizards etc???
23. Hill Roberts rejects that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the Gen 1. Instead he believes they were created sometime around the 5th day, but are not specifically included in the list of animal listed in Genesis that were created on the 5 day.
24. Hill Roberts rejects that the sun and moon were created on creation day four. Rather they argue that the sun was created long before even the first day of creation. He teaches that the sun and moon only became visible on day 4 of creation because the atmosphere cleared up.
25. Hill Roberts rejects that the Paluxy River Taylor trail is human prints, since they reject that humans and dinosaurs ever co-existed. Hill Roberts do not believe that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day along with man.
26. Hill Roberts openly states that trying to date the events before Genesis 11, (about the time of Abraham) is the earliest dates we can be sure of. Before Abraham, we have no way of knowing how much time passes. None of the Bible's genealogies or chronologies are reliable for determining time before Gen 11.

Hill Roberts is both a professional physicist and a conservative evangelical Christian after the New Testament pattern, a combination considered an oxymoron by many in our techno-culture. He and associate teachers have developed a comprehensive apologetics workshop, "Lord, I Believe", for Christian and skeptic. The following is his approach to Christian apologetics, with some background information on Roberts, the workshop and its teachers.

"We challenge both philosophies of naturalism and religious faith to explore what rational basis exists for our systems of belief. We contend that on balance there is much more basis for agreement than the typical friction between science-oriented and faith-oriented belief systems." [webmasters note: when Hill uses the words, "agreement, friction" between Genesis and Science, that means he accepts the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old along with the standard evolutionary geologic column and completely allegorizes the 6 day creation account in Genesis. A "faith oriented belief system" is taking Genesis literally as six 24- hour days and an earth under 10,000 years old. He removes the friction by allegorizing Genesis.]

"The classical approach and vocabulary for study of internal and philosophical apologetics holds very little appeal or sway in today's technical culture. This seems to be true among believers as well. Apologetics for today's skeptical world must instead deal with a broad range of current issues spanning modern topics such as natural design, genetics and natural selection, cosmology, biochemistry and the origin of life, geological dating and paleontology. All of these topics can be approached at a level accessible to all audiences, not just those with scientific backgrounds. We show that in each area there is a body of facts beyond dispute and that those same scientific facts form a solid basis for interpretations consistent with the Biblical principles fundamental to Christian faith, such as creation by a transcendent Being. [webmasters note: "body of facts beyond dispute" means that the age of the earth, dating processes, standard geologic column] By drawing from the published work of respected scientists and authors, most of whom are evolutionists, we show how modern research is providing more and more natural evidence everyday that builds spiritual faith in skeptic and believer alike. However, some preconceived religious traditions may need to be reexamined in light of the Creator's work faithfully recorded in nature. [webmasters note: "preconceived religious traditions" means "young earth creation"] The approach is to present the primary data from the natural realm for the hearer to evaluate on its own merits, rather than by appealing to a myriad of quotations from either religious or scientific authorities."

"My mission is to show skeptic and believer alike why one can have confidence in the Bible and especially why I believe in the historicity of creation and the resurrection of Jesus in particular. While I am a scientist and Christian who believes in creation, I do not promote what is generally referred to as "creation science" or "creationism". I adhere to standard science methods and scientifically reported data to evaluate the creation/evolution issue, instead of getting sidetracked over spurious hypotheses such as young earth flood geology. Scrupulous scientific integrity is the only way to approach today's scientific skeptic." [webmasters note: We appreciate Hill's openness in this admission.]

"Furthermore, we believe that the faith challenges arising from skepticism are most profitably prevented by providing studies beginning with the very young using the most modern teaching methods and the same technology used to teach the secular world view in the public schools and through the media. [webmasters note: This is an area where we are most concerned. Hill's mandate in this seminar is to indoctrinate the VERY YOUNG against young earth and into accepting his old earth view and allegorizing of 6 day creation] To that end we have established the "Lord, I Believe" workshops to provide the "Technicolor" apology for Christ and His Word to skeptic and believer alike at any age level from two years old through adult. We do this by using intensely graphic-oriented materials including electronic presentations, large poster presentations, photographs of the astronomical and microscopic worlds, studies of the heavens using a telescope, computer based experiments and simulations, computer-aided self-pacing instruction, laboratory experiments and demonstrations, microscope studies, dissections, hands-on work with real fossils, video presentations, Bible text analysis, bibliographical displays, lectures and worksheets."

Origin of the Cosmos, Origin of Life, Design in the Universe, Design in Nature, Design and Limits in Natural Selection, Genetics and the Problems of Evolution, The Probabilities of Evolution, Separating the, Time and Evolution Issues, Fossils: God's Evidence of Creation, Nature of God, Accuracy of the Bible, Evidence for the Resurrection, Humanism and Its Influences, What is Evolution?, Harmonizing Genesis and Science Biographical Data [webmasters note: when Hill harmonizes Genesis and Science, that means he accepts the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old along with the standard evolutionary geologic column and completely allegorizes the 6 day creation account in Genesis.]

Hill Roberts leads the "Lord, I Believe" apologetics workshops which he, with his wife Carol and six other teachers, developed to bring current scientific findings together with conservative Bible faith at a level suitable for both adults and children. These studies are presented in parallel classes taught at seven different levels tailored for adults to children of all ages. This thirteen hour workshop has been presented in nine states with over forty congregations of Christ since beginning in 1987. In addition, Hill has given formal apologetics lectures at the University of Alabama Birmingham, Centenary University, Southern Christian University and Cornell University defending the case for creation in light of modern science. He has developed all these studies and many more in electronic format now available on CD-ROM.

In addition to teaching Apologetics since 1975, he has taught and authored advanced Bible study guides for Job, Isaiah, The Scheme of Redemption, The Grace of God, The Inspiration of the Bible, The Canon of the Bible, Textural Criticism, The Nature of God, and God's Design for Marriage. Hill serves as a deacon with the Weatherly Heights church of Christ in Huntsville, Alabama. Hill and Carol have three daughters, 14, 18 and 20 as the 1998 year closes.

After leaving Florida College in 1973, Hill studied Physics (specializing in Quantum Mechanics and Condensed Matter) at the University of Alabama, also obtaining his Certification in Secondary Education for Physics, Math and Chemistry. He has taught Physics at both the High School and University levels. He has also taught professional seminars in Infrared and Radar sensor physics and systems engineering. Has presented his research results in professional peer reviewed journals and conferences in the US, Romania and Russia. He works for SRS Technologies, an R&D company.

Professional research includes thermoluminescence and electron spin resonance studies of x-ray damaged mercaptopurine molecules, solid state circuit manufacturing processes, nuclear safety engineering, advanced missile defense systems, high power x-ray lasers, infrared telescopes, hyper-velocity impact kinematics, fiber optic imaging, and stimulated gamma ray emission from nuclear isomers. He holds a patent for an optical solid state fire detector, and has patent applications in process for IR fiberoptic imaging pyrometers and incoherent fiberoptic imaging. He also supports research in the physics of defense against biological agents of warfare (bacteria , viruses and toxins).

He is published in the Journal of Applied Physics, the journal of Hyperfine Interactions, Journal of Laser Physics, IEEE Proceedings and has authored numerous reports for the Government on strategic and tactical missiles and missile defense systems.

Florida College, 1970-73.

BS Physics, University of Alabama, 1975.

MS Physics, University of Alabama, 1978.

"Thought you might be interested in the statements below taken from the brochure we provide to churches for them to advertise the seminar. It is completely up to them if they use our brochure or not. No church has ever asked us to change this and all churches except one have used the brochure as we provided it. The one exception was a congregation that had an exceptional graphic artist who adapted their advertisements from ours. It was of course much better than ours, but still had the same content. I suppose churches that are not comfortable with any of our approach do not ask us. They have my fullest support in that choice reflecting their congregational autonomy. Feel free to share this with anyone interested."

sincerely,

Hill Roberts
dated: 1-19-99

Come join us. All are welcome, no one will be intimidated or ridiculed. We will study to determine if there is a rational basis for belief in God, a belief that the universe is His creation, and that the Bible is His written revelation. We believe there is, and want to tell you why! Regardless of your beliefs, you will be treated cordially as our honored guest.

We can only attempt to posit a harmonization between what we think we know about Genesis I & 2 and what we think we know about nature. Other harmonies, young or old, are possible. This harmonization follows very closely the parenthetical approach given by Allan Hayward in Creation and Evolution.

God, being spirit rather than physical, is not bound by His physical laws such as conservation of mass/energy. God created, from physical nothingness, the entire fabric of the universe including the dimension of time at the beginning of space-time. It is a 'singular' event of transformation from spirit to physical. It is primary cause and effect. The physical laws for nature were necessarily created at this point, so that the created substance would be under the law of God from the very beginning. These laws are the authority of God for His creation. God no more needs to exercise His authority directly upon nature, save to further shape its course where it pleases Him to transcend these physical laws. This transformation from spirit to substance would naturally lead from the ephemeral to the physical, from power to substance, from energy to mass. This is exactly the type of transformation theories such as the Big Bang 'post-dict' for the results of the initial created beginning. These 'post-dictions' are based on the results of the universe continuing, to follow these initial laws. The transformation of energy to matter continues until the creation is fully prepared for His next acts of design. Space is flung far and wide with just the right dynamic balance of forces to sustain a place called Earth. But it is now an infant Earth that stands ready for further shaping.

The early Earth is not at all like we see it today. It contains the same materials but they are without the order required to support God's next plans. His natural laws ordinarily led to places with the right materials, but seldom, if ever, with the order necessary to sustain intelligent beings. The processes God started at the beginning are very dynamic and lead to a cycling and recycling of materials, all for good result. Its kind of like stirring a batter to get all the ingredients mixed up correctly before the actual cooking process can begin. The same may have happened with the materials of the Earth. Finally the batter is ready.

It 'was void', or it 'became void'; either way, things were not finished on the Earth. A great deal of preparation is required to make the Solar System with its Earth ready for man. It must be stabilized, cooled, surfaced, protected. From the 'surface'' of Earth, God surveys the results of His work so far-, work that has resulted in this orbiting blob of clay-gas. So much for the easy part. God goes to work now in earnest.

God, as it turns out, is a family of three Persons. Logos, the Word, is the one who is responsible for creation, for turning God's Spirit into physical reality. The Word speaks. When the Word speaks, creation listens. First, He makes the energy for this place available to it. But it is not yet able to tolerate the full force of the Sun. Such would be like turning on an oven full blast without anything in it to absorb the heat. The oven melts. God is merely doing a little pre-heating, before the cake goes in. The 'cooking' will come later.

How all this went exactly we can't yet say. The initial nature of the universe was apparently one of raw energy - 'light'; the initial nature of the forming earth was likely one of intense heat from gravitational compression producing large amounts of radiant energy -'light'; the initial nature of the sky was likely such that it was a diffuse source of light from external illumination through a thick shield of gases.

Nature leads us to believe that the early Earth was not blessed with such a clear atmosphere as today. Maybe at first it was like Jupiter where the gases are so thick that sunlight can't even penetrate to that planet's liquid surface. It was dark where God was on the 'surface' of Earth. He has never liked darkness. It seems likely that the powers of Darkness and God have already been at crossed purposes. Maybe that is ultimately what is behind this awesome building project of God in the first place: His nature requires that darkness be dispelled from existence. He decrees and Earth responds: the light comes in. But it seems that the source of this light is not obvious. Maybe the atmosphere had cleared only enough to be something like that on Venus: a thick cloud. Protecting, insulating and warming up this place to prepare it for life. Now, things can really begin to happen. The first period of physical preparation is over. Darkness has been transformed to light by the Word of God. Ironically, the Word of God is not just physical light for this world but also will prove to be the very Light of God in the way of darkness. It seems axiomatic with God that first there is Light, then there is Life! First, from the sun, then by His Son.

A cycle of light and dark begins on Earth, but the source of this light remains hidden beyond the clouds. God has transformed spirit into substance, eternity into time, singular point into vast expanse, darkness into light, one might even say 'evening to morning'. Day One.

How long was this? Long enough.

Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. " (And God made the expanse and separated tile waters from tile waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven.) And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Now once again God lets this environment He's created do what He created it to do: make (assah') the surface of the Earth. The earth is going through a process of cooling as it stabilizes with a surface of solid materials and an atmosphere with a particularly unique substance - water. Life is going to critically depend on both the minerals and water of this surface. But they must be properly and uniquely arranged. Clay-gas won't do. Mud won't do. Water and mineral must be separated. The waters are placed in liquid state on the surface and in gaseous state above the surface. This two-reservoir design will ultimately be the visually distinctive feature of this place - it will become known as the Blue Planet as viewed from the heavens, because of Water - the elixir of Life. It will also be critical to the long-term thermal stability of this place as well as to the necessity for environmental diversity. God has lots of ideas for life - He needs a big canvas to work on. An expanse!

One could not have picked a better word to describe the nature of all that is beyond the surface of the Earth. The atmosphere extends to the left and the right without end. How so? This place is spherical geometry. It is a closed-curved two-dimensional surface without boundary. Above the surface is the domain of God, His universe, His testament to His existence for us: the Heavens which declare His glory, not man's. It is a huge testament. It measures at least 20 billion light years in diameter and yet the prophet Isaiah would later observe that God measures the universe by the mere span of the palm of His hand. This universe beyond Earth is so dramatically an evidence for God that He would choose to use this word - Heaven - as the word to describe the domain of His abode: a place beyond scale, beyond human grasp, a place of God. The Expanse.

God pronounces His will and it happens. Not a bad piece of work for a second day.

How long was this? How long did it take God to pronounce His will? Not long. A day is surely sufficient. How long did it take the Earth to comply with His decree? However long it takes. The important part took only as long as for God's Word to express God's Will. The rest is just machinery.

More needs to be done on the surface part of this place. The dry land is formed so as to be surrounded by the water. Dry land in one place, seas in another. This is exactly the way we find evidence for the early land mass. One big chunk which later broke apart. These continents originally all fit together like puzzle pieces. This is especially easy to see now that we have accurate maps of the bottom of the seas. There we can see the cracks in the surface from which the land plates have drifted apart. And they are still moving a measurable amount: that's why we have earthquakes. It would prove to be important for the early earth to all be connected by common surface, and later it would prove to be equally important for it to be separated for the ecological diversity necessary to support life all over the globe's surface. Marvelous design! It gets better.

Life finally arrives. The first living things will be plants. There is already light, and there is earth, and there is water. All that is needed is the design and the power to implement it. So the basic machinery of life is designed and decreed by God. DNA will be able to self replicate in the living protection of a cell, even in so simple a cell as an algae. Algaes are the first known fossils of living things on this earth. Algaes do exactly what was necessary for the next phase of life: they make oxygen. They concentrate the energy of sunlight into the complex molecules necessary as the foodstuffs of the next layer in the onion of life: animals. But animals will come later; there is a lot of work for these first plants to do first.

Over the course of the natural history recorded in the fossils we will find that God's will is precisely obeyed. First, there were simple vegetative plants like algae's, 'tender grasses'. Then came the sporuralating gymnosperm plants like ferns with bare seeds. These were followed by the plants that have seeds inside the fruit, angiosperms. These plants did not leave any fossils that show the first type evolving into the second type, nor the second evolving into the third. They just suddenly appear in full form in the fossil record. Just as if at some point someone said, "OK, now its time for you guys."

With the thick atmosphere and single land mass, the whole earth would have been a tropical environment. This is just what the fossil record reveals. Tropical plants abounded all over the land masses. Plants grew huge. This would ultimately require that very large animals be made to maintain the necessary system balance. The remnants of these large plants left behind a wonderful legacy for us today: coal, oil and gas. That's planning ahead. But these layers also play a significant role in the stabilization and recycling processes in the earth's crust, so there was more to it than just providing for us to have electric lights.

How long did this take? For God to pronounce His Will for the land and the plants not long, a day seems to be just right. How long did it take for the land and the plants to accomplish His will? However long His natural laws decreed. The natural history of these first plants indicates that it covered quite a bit of time by our clocks, but for God 'twas a mere blink of an eye. We are on God's clock in Genesis 1. Evening, and morning, and God is ready for day four.

Just as the heavens and the earth were created on day one (1:1), so the sun, moon and stars were created on day one. What is here described is the arrangement whereby these objects are made ('assah') to function in the manner now described as the chronometers and distinct identifiable sources of light with which we are familiar today. Whereas before, the daily cycle on earth was a vague passage from light to darkness as the Sun light is diffused within a thickened atmosphere-, now possibly is when the atmosphere begins to clear to allow direct access to sunlight at the surface. The plants are in place and ready to process the sun's energy at full gain, so to speak. Photosynthesis can switch to high gear. The moon also becomes visible alone, with the stars. The passage of time now can be recorded due to the natural processes of annual seasonal changes as well as the daily cycle. The thermal stability is also in a process of change. The water vapor in the clouds is forced to the surface in greater quantity which results in the sky's clearing. Weathering processes increase. Sediments build and entrap seasonal records of the passage of time, lots of time. The earth is still essentially a tropical place and will remain so for some time. Day follows night now in ever increasing clarity. Evening and morning, a fourth day.

How long did this take? A single fourth day for God to cause these changes merely by the issue of His Will, by decree. And just as long as the processes He decreed would need to accomplish all that He decreed. Four creative decisions, four days, but a much longer time in the working out or making happen of these decisions.

Does this diminish in any way the fact and awe of creation in six days? Not at all. The glory of Christ's church was created, purposed, by God's will, even before eternity and time began, but He used many thousands of years of making and preparation before it came to fruition. Rather than diminishing God's glory, the church glorifies God even more as this mystery is revealed. When the fullness of times came so did the Christ come to bring life for us who were dead. So it is in Genesis I after the fourth day.

Now it is time for the Word to create ('bara') life of an entirely different type than plants. Animals. Life that has soul. Sentient, animate life. Not with spirit yet, but soul, which precedes spirit.

This is it. Embodied Life now explodes. Once again God moves in as He did initially with His raw creative power to decree something from nothing: animate life where there was none. The seas explode with an amazing diversity of life such as has never been seen again. Then the air is filled with birds, and the land will soon be filled with its distinctive kinds (but that's getting ahead of the story.) The fossils show us just a picture like this. In the Cambrian sediments, animal life explodes into existence. It is not clear from the fossils that any animals existed in earlier layers at all. Some worm holes may have been found, but then worms do tend to burrow underneath.

How long was this day five? One day for God to proclaim His creation of fish and birds. And just as long as necessary for the fish and birds (and other not mentioned) animals to fully occupy their place in the cycle of life. This apparently took some time if the geological data has the significance it apparently has. Many hundreds and thousands of feet of sediments accumulated with marine life before the birds and beasts show up in the fossil record. Even some massive extinctions show up, but life just keeps on going and going, day after day, evening to morning, day five.

So then the final period of creation begins. Land animals are decreed and land animals appear. The fossils show just this. The mammal-like animals mentioned here in Genesis just suddenly appear in the fossil record without precursors. These Genesis animals are grouped into three broad groups: cattle, wild beasts (like deer and elk) and creeping things (remeses: small animals like sheep, etc. some edible, some not; does not include reptiles because these were never edible). All these animals are in the same or very nearly the same upper fossil strata as the remains of early men. God includes both animals and man on this sixth day recorded in Genesis 1.

How long did this take? God willed into existence these animals on day five. Yet His revelation in the fossils appears to show us that they dwelt on this earth for some much longer time before God chose to finish this day's work with the creation of man. In Genesis 2 we will see that upon closer inspection there appears to have been a substantial amount of time involved between the time of the beasts before Adam and the culmination of creation with Eve. [Webmasters note: Hill teaches that God merely spent 6 literal 24 hour days thinking up the plan and then decreeing it. But the actual time it took to create was much longer. So in Hill's view, nothing was actually created in the 6 days of creation at all, God merely drew up the plans.]

The third great feat of 'bara' creation is decreed - man! The first was the universe itself (1: 1), the second was animate life (1:2 1), and now finally - man (1:27) There are no natural laws that can accomplish these feats. God spoke the universe into existence and that is exactly how it appears through our telescopes. God spoke the animals into existence and that's exactly how it appears in the fossil record. God spoke man into existence and so it appears. There are no transitional fossils to modern man. When the huge difference between man's spiritual person is compared to the purely instinctive behavior of animals, we can understand why God had to create man. We are radically different from the animals in a special way that transcends the physical in the image of God. Not only a living soul, but persons in the image of God!

He formed man from the dust of the ground we find out in chapter 2. If we just had Genesis I we would never have guessed that God actually made our physical bodies from dirt. He did not create Adam's body, he made it out of other stuff. Yet Genesis 2 elaborates on this process that is not even mentioned in Genesis 1. 'From the dust' is exactly the way it appears now that we understand more about chemistry. Man, and all life, is made from basic components of the earth: carbon, nitrogen, water and a few other minerals. Because of these common elements, we can all depend upon the plants for our basic food. Even though we may eat an animal, the food value derives from the fact that that animal ate plants. Genesis is exactly correct. People are persons, animals roam the earth, but plants are merely food.

When we go to the expanded version of day six in Genesis 2 we find it made pointedly clear that it was apparently a long time before man was created to take care of this place. Genesis 2:5-7 clearly indicates a long-term situation on the earth that needed a radical solution: man. So God molds man from the dust of the ground. Then that man, Adam, must be prepared for God's greatest work - woman. Adam must be prepared, just as the whole universe had to be prepared for man. After all the animals are examined by Adam, and named, he clearly realizes his alone-ness. Then he is ready for God's solution: Woman, his help-mate. "WOW. She's just like me, (not like those animals.) She is a part of me!" Somehow it just doesn't seem like Adam could have come to appreciate God's gift so much if he had only been here a few hours.

Genesis 2 presents a much clearer picture of how a day of God's creation is actually worked out in more detail. Surely it was so for the other days only briefly described in Genesis 1.

How could Moses have been so consistently correct? He couldn't. Moses didn't have the foggiest idea about these things. Genesis 1 & 2 is God speaking to His children explaining where we came from: from the mind and power of a loving, caring God - our Father.

It truly was 'VERY GOOD!' These six decrees close God's creative activity. However, the creation is still responding to His decrees. The making goes on and on. Stars are still being born, as are baby animals and children, but these are just doing what God decreed during those six days of His creative work in which He created and made the universe. Now God can rest. The seventh day becomes a special commemoration of creation.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made heaven and earth.

Wow!

We can see just how complex creation becomes when we begin to see more of what God revealed to us. If He had revealed even this very limited level of written detail, Genesis I would have grown to five times its original length. God put all this technical stuff in an 'Appendix' called the creation itself. Even if He had written out such a level of detail as guessed at here, it would not even come close to really explaining what creation was like or how it was accomplished. We just aren't up to it. God knew that. What we are given in Genesis I & 2 exactly suited the purpose of God's written revelation: to reveal to us in no uncertain terms WHO is in charge here - GOD, Elohim, our Creator. A Creator of good who' loved us enough to make us like Him, persons in His image.

From this relationship flows the rest of the Bible's message.

[Webmasters note: This is an original photo of a handout given by Carol Roberts in 1997 to the children in a seminar she co-taught with Hill Roberts in the Lord's church. Members of churches who have hosted the Robert's creation seminar have observed that Hill, while teaching the adults, veils his view that the earth in millions of years old, that dinosaurs lived and died long before day one of creation, that the Noaic flood was not global but merely local. Carol Roberts, on the other hand, openly promotes the old earth view, even refuting anyone who suggests the literal six 24 hour view.]

One of the really fun things to wonder about is the dinosaurs. You've probably seen movies about dinosaurs. I'm sure you've studied about them in school. They get so much attention. We can't help but want to know more about them.

When we learn about dinosaurs we see that we have evidence that they once lived on the earth. Scientists have found many bones and whole skeletons of these large creatures. They have found fossil dinosaurs eggs and dino footprints in stone. They have even found 'dino mummies' - dried out bodies of dinosaurs. We know that they do not live on earth now. We have not found any reliable evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. We believe that the Bible teaches that God made everything. So it is natural to wonder about when they might have lived.

Let's look at how we learn things about God and His creation. In Hebrews 1:1-2 and John 1:1-5 we read that God tells us about Himself through His Word - the word of Jesus and His apostles and prophets which are recorded in the Bible. Now let's read Romans 1:20. You can see that God also expects us to look at His beautiful creation and learn about Him. So - let's look!

First, let's consider a story. [webmaster note: this story is similar to the "parable" Carol Roberts uses when teaching children that we must not take the 6 creation days as 24 hour days click here to see. Remember the purpose of these two stories is to show that the days of creation are not 24 hour days, but much longer.] Suppose your best friend - who has never told you a lie - just won first place in the city science fair contest. You ask him how he did it?

He says,

1. On Day 1 - I planned it.
2. On Day 2 - I outlined the paper.
3. On Day 3 - I made the graphs. On Day 4 - I drew the artwork On Day 5 - I did the lettering. On Day 6 - I assembled it."

BUT

1. His teacher says, "He worked on it for a month."
2. His mother says, "He worked on it for several months."

Who do you believe? If you trust them all to tell the truth, you would try to figure what each one could have meant and still be the truth. Your friend might the telling you his plan of action to make the final winning display; how he divided his work and finished on time. His teacher is telling you how much class time they spent working on their projects at school. His mother is telling you how much time passed while he completed the project from the first day he found out about the contest until he turned it in.

All of them told you the truth. You took what each said to you and put together a bigger picture of what was really involved in his project.

Now look at what we do when we study the creation story. Remember, when learning about God, He tells us to use two records: His word and the natural world. We believe them both. So we study to see how they fit together.

First of all the Bible does not talk about dinosaurs at all. Can you find dinosaurs mentioned in Genesis 1? No. The sixth day only talks about what we would call cattle and other mammal-type animals that the people of Moses' day lived with. Your Bible probably mentions beasts and creeping things. These words are used in the rest of the Bible to refer to animals like sheep and similar wild animals. Not bugs, and not dinosaurs.

Some people have tried to take a reference in Job 40 and 41 that talks about a terrible fire breathing beast to say that it was a dinosaur. You probably already have learned enough about dinosaurs in school to know that none of them, or any other real animal, breaths fire. This is not about dinosaurs - it is where God talked about what we would call dragons, not real animals. But the people of Job's day were really very afraid of their dragons. They probably pictured animals like the huge hippopotamus and fierce crocodiles in their minds. The dragon is a part of a vision Job had as he was wrestling with the evil brought on him by evil Satan. These dragon animals were used by God to help Job understand how powerful and wicked Satan was in a way Job could understand. John also wrote this way about Satan in the book of Revelation - also a vision. (See Revelation 12 & 13.)

Now, let's use the two ways we learn about God and His creation: through His word - the Bible, and through His work - nature, John 1 and Romans 1. Since God does not talk about dinosaurs specifically in the Bible, anything we can learn about dinosaurs will be things we learn from God's natural record - nature.

What does the natural record tell us about dinosaurs? The rocks in which the dinosaur fossils are found appear to be very old. With what we now know about nature, it seems dinosaurs might also be very old in the history of our earth.

Since dinosaurs are never specifically mentioned in the Bible, it is natural to wonder where they may have fit into the creation story. Do you think it is OK to wonder about these things? Yes. would it be OK to look at different ideas about where they might fit into creation? Yes. Let's look at a few ideas that Christian people have come up with to suggest how it might have happened. But first let's make sure we know what Genesis 1 does NOT say. Open your Bible to Genesis 1 and let's Look at God's word together.

What does the Bible say about:

1. How old the universe is?
2. How old the earth is?
3. How old mankind is?
4. How long each creation day was? (If child assumes they must be 24 hours see: Gen 2:4, Dt 10:10, Psalms 90:1-4 and 2 Pet 3:8)
5. How long the earth was formless and void? ('formless and void' means without the pattern we know on earth today)
6. If the creation days were one right after another? (as in a week; but the term for 'week' is never applied to the creation days, even in Ex 20:11 where the sabbath week was set up based on the days of creation)
7. What process God used to make the things of Genesis happen?
8. After God spoke, how long was it before that happened?
9. Was each and every type of plant and animal made described? (imagine how big our Bible would be if every animal and plant were even just listed separately)
10. How evening and morning existed as we would know it before the sun on day four was set up for that purpose?
11. How long Adam and Eve lived before they ate the forbidden fruit?

The Bible doesn't tell us the answer to any of these things that we may wonder about creation. Now we see there are many things about the creation that the Bible is silent about. If the Bible doesn't say something, we need to be careful not to say it does.

Let's look at some ideas Christians have come up with to explain the dinosaurs.

• Some people think that dinosaurs lived at the same time as early man but that we just haven't figured out how to study our earth enough to see it that way as yet.
• Some people think that each day in Genesis 1 may be more than the twenty four hour day we think of now. Day would be just a 'time' like in Dt 10:10. The morning of each day would mark a new creation time by God. The evening of each day would mark the end of what could possibly be a very long time to us. So the dinosaurs could have existed in the early part of 'day' six and be gone by the time man was created near the end of day' six, or the sixth 'time'.
• Some people think the days were regular days like we know today, but that they were separated with large spans of time between the days. During these times many changes could have happened to the earth - changes that God created, or planned, to happen. In this idea, like the one before, the dinosaurs could have existed in the early part of these long times and been long gone before the events described on day six.
• Some people think the earth in verse 1 and 2 may have existed in the formless void state for a long time before God began the work listed for the six days. As men have studied the translating of the Bible they have found that the best reading of Genesis 1:2 could also be read as, 'And the earth became formless and void.' In other words, early on the earth might have been entirely different, then become formless and form, and from that point God did the things described on days 1 through 6. In this idea dinosaurs could have lived and become extinct during this early time in earth's life before it became formless and void. Certainly the age of the dinosaurs was according to a very different pattern than the way it is now on earth. Some scientists actually think most life on earth may have been 'destroyed' by an giant asteroid about the time of the end of the dinosaurs.
• Some people think that Genesis 1 only tells about creation in the simplest way possible so that everyone from then to now, young or old, could understand that God made everything. He is the starting point if we want to know why we are here. In this idea God doesn't address things like the dinosaurs because it wasn't necessary to make His point. Back in the days that God gave Genesis to us, people didn't even know about fossils, much less dinosaurs. Such details would only be confusing. Don't you think that there are probably many things that we could not understand today about creation even if God had told us all those kinds of details?
• A few people even think that God just made to earth look old. In this idea they think He made it in six 24 hour days right in a row - what we would call a week - not very long ago. God would have made the earth with the dinosaur fossils already in it. In other words the dinosaurs wouldn't have really lived at all, but God would have made it look like they did, obviously on purpose. This, and many other parts of nature, would then look very old when it really isn't. Only address this idea if the child suggests it or has been taught it since it is a conflict with the truthful nature of God - "God cannot lie." Titus 1:2. He told us to study nature to learn about His divine character. It wouldn't bode well for His character if He intentionally fooled us with fake animals like dinosaurs and all the other fossils.

Think about any or all of these ideas. Maybe parts of several of these ideas could be correct. Do any of these say something that would make the Bible words untrue? (This is the problem with the appearance of age solution.) Do any of these ideas tell you for sure when the dinosaurs lived?

No. These ideas are just fun to think about. Maybe you would like to study to be a person who learns about fossils - a paleontologist. There are many things a Christian can do. And being a Christian scientist is one thing you might want to think about doing some day. You could study more about God's record in nature. Maybe you could find something to help us understand more about how all these mysteries fit together. You could become a Bible student to help us better understand how God's natural and written records both tell us more about our Father.

There are so many things we do not know about dinosaurs. Since we cannot 'clone' or recreate dinosaurs from their remains, scientists like to make their best guesses but they are still only guessing about many things. We don't know for sure why the dinosaurs are extinct. We don't know what their world was really like. We don't know if they could have been warm blooded like we are or not. We don't understand how the organs we are familiar with could have worked in such large bodies. No one has proved that dinosaurs are the ancestors of other reptiles. No one has proved that dinosaurs turned into birds, in spite of movies and books that make this seem like a certain fact There are no such fossils. (If your child knows about Archaeopteryx then study about how it was a fully feathered bird, not a dinosaur - just look at pictures of it, it doesn't even look like a dinosaur. It had some weird things like teeth, but it was just a bird.)

We do know that today man makes great use of the age of the dinosaurs because we rely on fossil fuels for the things we enjoy so much today. What a great way for God to supply the earth with many fuels that we use in so many ways. Actually scientist suspect that there are many other very basic benefits from that age that we do not yet even know.

For now let's review what we know for sure about dinosaurs. We know these magnificent creatures lived, died out and are gone. We know that God made everything and so He made the dinosaurs too. We know God used the age of the dinosaurs to supply the earth with many fuels that we use for so many things today.

Go through each of the following questions slowly - give your child the time to think and answer.

1. Does the question about when the dinosaurs were made change anything about what we believe about God?
2. Does the question of dinosaurs change anything about what we believe about God making everything?
3. Does it change anything at all about the message of the Bible and what it tells us about what we must do to be pleasing to God?
4. Does the question of dinosaurs change the way you act, you worship or the choices you make in any way?

The answer to all these questions is no. (Maybe that's why God didn't go into the dinosaurs in the Bible.) Doesn't that make dinosaurs a fun thing to wonder and dream about? Perhaps God in His wisdom and love for us gave us special things like dinosaurs to discover and examine. Just think how many other things there may be in the creation just waiting for us to discover and explore. In Proverbs 25:2 we read, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. Kings were the 'scientists' of that day! God has made this beautiful home we call earth a very special place. Isn't it fun to discover some of the great surprises He has given to His children. We can be thankful to God for all the many surprises He planned for us and for all the fun and exciting things to discover in this beautiful world He planned for us.

Once there was a man who had three daughters Rachel, age three; Brooke, seven; and Melissa, nine. On her birthday, after hearing some thoughtless fables about storks, his youngest daughter Rachel came to her daddy with THE question. "Daddy, where did I come from?" The stork line wouldn't do with Rachel. This wasn't supposed to be happening. His other daughters still had not yet asked that question. He was unprepared. What would he do, he thought?

Surely it wasn't time for a technical birds and bees discussion. Anyway, that wasn't what she was asking for, he was sure. Here's what he came up with, "Well, Rachel a long time ago your mother and I weren't ready to have children. We began to get ready. One day we got married, went to work and made a place to live. Then we decided that we would like to have a child. What a wonderful day that was, I can still remember how very bright and pleasant that morning was. That evening we asked God to help us make a child. He did. And we named that first child Melissa. She was a beautiful child. That was a wonderful day, Rachel, when we decided to have your sister, Melissa"

"Then a second day came when your mother and I decided to have another child, and again God gave us your sister Brooke. She was as wonderful and beautiful as we had hoped. It was a second great day.

"A third day came when your mother and I decided to ask God one more time for a new baby. A third time He blessed us and gave us a new baby which we named Rachel. That third day was a very special day because that's when we decided to love you forever."

"That is where you came from, Rachel. We decided to have each of our girls because all of you give us so much happiness. We love you all very much. We remember those three special days once each year when we have your birthdays."

He could have given more technical answers, but Rachel wouldn't have understood them at the time. So he focused on what he thought would matter to Rachel. She did come from somewhere: the love of her parents and God. They had prepared everything in their lives to lovingly provide for their children's needs. She didn't just show up on someone's doorstep one day. They actually decided to have and love each of their children on an actual day at an actual moment in time. All the intervening details and mechanics were of no consequence to the message. Sperm and eggs and trimester months were unnecessary details. It is true that not all babies arrive as a result of the conscious positive decision of the parents. However, due to a biological turn of events it had to be done just that way with these parents. Thus the message did not in any way portray anything that wasn't precisely so: no storks, no fairies, no old wives tales. What it provided was a correct yet highly simplified answer to a very difficult question.

When Rachel grows up, will she look back to this answer and see it as totally out of harmony with biology or will she remember it as giving true meaning and comfort when it was needed? It is a timeless answer - it will be as good for Rachel's great-great-grandchild as it is for Rachel.

When God speaks to us in Genesis, is the Father not speaking just so to His children? He tells us that on certain days, at certain times, in a well-thought out sequence, He willed various aspects of our world to be. Nothing more is said than that it happened and that it was good. No details are given for the processes involved, even though the idea of making, shaping and forming is inherent in the "assah" word translated as made. Each of these creation days is commemorated in the seven days of our week, just as we commemorate out own physical birthday. We pick one day to commemorate a process begun months before the single day we celebrate on our birthday. Likewise, it is the seventh day that is special in God's week. According to Exodus 20:11 that is why God gave us the week in the first place, as a covenant reminder of His special day of rest after this first creation. Every week of our lives should be a worshipful celebration of the 'birthday' of life itself. This now has even deeper significance as the resurrected life of Jesus is remembered each first day of the week by those who have been reborn, re-created, in Him. Jesus is the Creator!

He is:

the Word that in the beginning was spoken by God. the Light of the world from day one. the Cornerstone foundation for the world. the Water of life. the Vine plant growing to sustain life. the Sun and Moon of Heaven, the Bright Morning Star. the Lamb of sacrifice. the Son of Man, the last Adam. the Rest, our Sabbath, the seventh day. the Groom, one with His perfect bride, His church. the Seed of Woman, promised to Eve. the Only Begotten, the Firstborn, the Son of God - in Him we live and move and have our being. the Alpha and Omega, the Genesis and the Apocalypse, the Author and Finisher of our Faith!

Have the children of God now grown up so much that we could understand the details of creation, be they eons or instants? Rachel will grow in wisdom, so do we; but, which of us can now give conclusive answers to God's questions put to Job, Job 28-41? Which of us can speak from the knowledge gained by attending the 'birth' of the creation itself, as God asked Job in 38:4? We are forever God's children, growing learning and increasing in awe as we learn. No matter how much we learn of Him through His creation, His simple explanation will still be one that answers our basic need. He has spoken to us as the children of His that we are. There is a great comfort to be taken in that, And a great responsibility to behave as the good children He would have us to be.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:1-5

• "It seems unlikely that dinosaurs are described in Job" p.1
• "If humans and dinosaurs did coexist, then much better data will likely be needed..." p.9
• webmasters note: Hill believes the animals of Job are the crocodile and hippo. We find it incredible that would use the word "IF" in reference to whether humans and dinosaurs co-existed. The Bible clearly states that Adam and all animals were created on the SAME 6th day.

"I just had a long talk with Hill Roberts on the telephone. I thought the easiest way to find out what he believes was to ask him. He does accept billions of years for the age of the universe. He accepts the general time frame of the ages of evolutionist such as 140 million years ago for the Cretaceous period.

He thinks God spoke at six specific times or days, but that does not mean everything was complete on that one day. Example: he created the stars, but stars are forming and dying today. There were also long periods of time in between the six days.

He thinks the sun, moon and stars were created on the first day but they did not become visible on earth until the 4th day. At that time, God cleared the atmosphere, which had been dense, similar to Venus, and once they became visible, they could be used for signs and seasons. This is how there was morning and evening before the fourth day, like morning and evening on an overcast day when the sun is never seen.

He accepts animal death and animals killing each other before Adam and Eve. The garden was a special place made for them, but the death brought in by sin was spiritual. Physical death and sin are not connected.

He is not convinced there was a worldwide flood. He believes if there was a worldwide flood, it was miraculous and left no signs behind. He does not think the sedimentary deposits on the earth were deposited by the Flood, but by normal processes through time, which would include gradualism plus occasional catastrophes. He also thinks it is possible that the flood was local and just covered the area in which mankind lived at that time."

"Re: punctuated equilibria (PE) My point is that the DATA that shows sudden beginnings, essential stability, coupled with the function of genetics working against rapid evolution leads to a reasonable conclusion that the fossil gaps are real. Innovations did just suddenly appear, but by creation not punctuated equilibria, and then -because of their genetic design- only underwent micro-evolutionary adaptations from then on until they became extinct or survived to present times.

Without resorting to bumper sticker idiom, catastrophe happens. Therefore it is popular in much that is written on creation to suppose that likewise the catastrophe of a world wide flood, such as happened during Noah's time, altered the earths geography so that what appears old to us today is really only the misinterpretation of relatively recent flood effects. It is true that floods do inordinate damage to the environment. The great scablands of eastern Washington state are a widespread example of massive erosion. Given traditional erosion rates for that type of rock under typical weather conditions would lead us to suspect that many centuries elapsed to carve the scabland formations. However the U.S. Geological Service believes that the entire erosion occurred in a matter of a few hours to days. The theory is that a large glacially locked prehistoric lake (termed Lake Missulla) broke through its glacial dam dumping the entire lake waters at once, thus rapidly carving the scabland formations. Similarly, some creationists suppose that the other major geological features of the earth (sedimentary strata, fossil depositions, canyons, mountains, continental plate breakups) are likewise the result of the even bigger flood of Noah.

While there are many aspects of this theory that are appealing if one is committed to a young earth chronology, there are many features which this theory doesn't explain. The biggest problem is that a single flood would not account for all the varied stratigraphy observed on the earth. Flood deposits are homogeneous mixtures, A flood scrambles tip all the eroded material then deposits it as a sediment layer. Rocks formed from flood deposits are frequently found in the form of conglomerate. Conglomerate strongly resembles peagravel concrete with chunks of fractured rock particles cemented together with finely divided sediment material. A flood yields a unique strata. But many distinct sediment layers exist. [webmasters note: Roberts is absolutely wrong about his view that the Noaic flood could not account for the 1.5 mile high layer of sediment that envelopes the earth. We are shocked he would even make such statements. We remind the reader that Roberts is a physicist, NOT A GEOLOGIST, and such comments prove he is "over his educational head in deep water". He makes many such false statement outside his specialized field. We suggest Roberts get more formal training in Geology before he continues to do his seminars or cease to make such statements.] For example, in the Grand Canyon one finds the Hermit marine shale sediment layer, overlaid by the Coconino desert sandstone layer (identified by the intact sand dunes complete with animal tracks), overlayed by another marine layer. Marine P desert P marine. A single flood does not account for such stratigraphy. If these materials had been deposited due to a massive flood over both marine and desert regions in a geologically short time, then all this material would have been scrambled together in a mineral omelet. Actually the very existence of such distinct layers indicates long periods of time transpiring between layer depositions. Some layers actually have drying cracks similar to what one observes in any dried mud flat. But these dried rock layers are found with many other layers of rock on top of them. Some of the layers have barnacles on the top surface. Barnacles only attach to hard surfaces. A single flood cannot account for such. Many of the layers in the Grand Canyon are so well defined that one can literally insert a knife blade between the layers. I have done so. Below the blade is one type of rock and above it is a completely different layer of rock bearing different fossils. The top surface of the strata has been smoothly eroded away, not deposited smoothly. This is easy to see at the upper Coconino boundary where the cross bedding continues to the edge instead of the top being rounded off or smoothed out mounds, of sand. To account for such clean demarcation requires that the lower sediment be deposited first. Then that must harden into rock to be ground smooth. (One can grind glass smooth, but try grinding Jello or loose sand.) A whole new ecology must then move in, in order to leave behind entirely different fossils in the next layer. While this is happening erosion must grind off the top of the bottom layer for the overlying sediment to be smoothly deposited thereupon. None of this happens quickly. This type of alternating layering is common. In the western U.S. in canyons such as the Grand, Bryce, Zion and the Guniuson, dozens of unique layers he exposed one on top of the other. A single flood, no matter how massive, cannot account for this complexly ordered structure, for exactly the same reason that random processes don't produce life. Chaotic processes such as flood turbulence produce disorder rather than what is actually observed. 'Mere is much disorder within any single layer due to flood turbulence conditions. But the order observed over many layers defies flood geology. Those layers got the way they are as a consequence of natural law. Where there is law, there is a law giver. Places like the Grand Canyon are an eloquent testimony for the Grand Law Giver P God. Albeit, possibly a more patient God than some prefer.

Some types of geological strata require that there be no ongoing flood conditions. For example, homogeneous limestone is formed as a chemical precipitate. Still water conditions are required. Much like stirring the mixture kills the formation of rock candy, so flood turbulence inhibits the deposition of calcium carbonate to form the limestone muds which slowly harden into rock. Sometimes these lime muds are shifted en masse by later events to forma local deposit very rapidly, but then this type of limestone does not have the same appearance as the homogeneous material originally deposited.

Bryce canyon was formed by wind erosion of the soft sandstone P not by a flood of water. Obviously flood geology does not deal with such formations.

Genetic adaptation in a gene pool occurs over at least several generations, which for most fossilized animals implies changes over a period of several years for each adaptation. A flood deposit for those sediments would certainly scramble any such record beyond recognition. Noah's flood was only about a year long. This doesn't leave enough time for the observed adaptations to develop. Such deposits are much better understood using a long-term slow sedimentation process which captures successively adapted physiologies from bottom to top in the formation.

Slow deposition of entrapping sediments, is a much better explanation for these deposits than rapid flood deposition. It is sometimes argued that only floods can provide a burial sufficiently rapid to preserve the animal intact for fossilization. This is likely true for soft-bodied land animals. But most fossils are marine life with hard shells or exoskeletons. These do not require rapid burial. It is also observed that a bivalve shell fish relaxes its valve upon death so that the shell is opened. That many shell fossils are found closed up is used to argue disingenuously that therefore these animals were rapidly buried. Many of these animals, such as shells, ordinarily bury themselves as, part of their instinctive behaviors, e.g. clams. If they die in that state, they stay closed and are perfectly entombed for fossilization.

The time required to form Coral reefs is another significant hurdle for this position. No flood process would do anything to cause coral to build faster, slower maybe but not faster.

There is a great deal geology does not yet understand about the earth's strata. Steve Austin in his ICR publication Geology of the Grand Canyon goes to great lengths to address specific objections to some of these points. Some objections probably have some merit, though many of the his points have yet to be published in the scientific literature. However, having made specific objections, he never addresses how the canyon as a whole came to have its total suite of features in a single flood in a way that is consistent with both geological process and the fossil distribution within the strata. The entire canyon formation process is simply ascribed to the early flood, Zion canyon is ascribed to the mid-flood stage, and Bryce Canyon is ascribed to the late-flood stage. Later chapters describe the fossils as representing different ecological zones which were buried during the flood. Yet it is never explained how these zones became located intact on top of each other instead of being either widely distributed laterally or severely scrambled vertically.

One feature that seems to be missed in flood geology theories is that Noah saw the earth both before and after the flood. The scale of post-flood change assumed by flood geology would be equivalent to being transported to a foreign planet P overwhelming, virtually nothing would be the same. There is no indication at all that what Noah saw was radically different. The incidents on Mt. Ararat indicate conversely that the physical features of the newly washed world were recognizably similar to the pre-flood world. Geologically, the flood of Noah was very short, a mere hiccup-, although the spiritual significance would prove to be enormous. It would not be likely that such an event would leave much of any geological record. The '93 floods of the upper Mississippi, though widespread in destruction, have left very little of permanence in the regional geology other than some new sediment deposits, in the Missippi delta. The Bible does not ascribe to the flood any of the effects assumed by flood geologists. Flood geology is frequently presented as consistent with the 'literal' Hilterpietation of scripture, yet the whole thing is speculation. Nothing in scripture points to any effects of the flood, other than the fact of the flood itself and that the land animals were killed. Yet it is used to explain the building of mountains thousands, of feet high, the formation of thousands of feet of fossil-bearing sediment layers, the breakup of the continents, the formation of canyons, and even the reset of the radioactive clock. Even if such were to be proved correct, it certainly is not a literal interpretation of scripture. That the flood occurred is not under debate; however, ascribing effects to the flood not revealed in scripture or natural history P even contra-indicated by natural history P is considered to be very risky hermenutics.

Which brings us to consider the antiquity of man. The age of man himself is not nearly so old as the cosmological ages just discussed. However it is much more difficult scientifically to identify a starting point from which to measure the antiquity of man. Typically 'modem' man (as identified by whole skeletons and artifacts clearly human Q burials, tools, art; i.e. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man ' ) is estimated to be of the order of 100,000 and 50,000 years old, respectively. While this is older than many expect from Genesis genealogies, it is only a single order of magnitude greater. Given the potential margins of error both in the anthropological dates as well as the uncertainties of using genealogies for purposes of dating mankind, it does not seem prudent or necessary to attempt any further harmonization. For all intents and purposes this is a non-issue. The difference between 104 years and 105 years would be conceded by any evolutionist to be geologically trivial and for all practical purposes irrelevant, not worth debating the difference. There is no significant point of argument with the evolutionist's theory at this point, there is certainly no need to force one. Therefore, we will not focus on the age of man in this discussion. Man is relatively young, and both science and the Bible present this perspective. Human age only becomes an issue when much older dates are used (106 years) which are associated with australopithecine apes and another bipedal ape probably misnamed Homo erectus. These are not any more clearly related to man than certain similarities observed between living primates (such as chimpanzees and gibbons) and humans. This falls back into a discussion of macroevolution and the paucity of fossil data to fill these gaps, which is discussed elsewhere.

When the contextural hermeneutic approach is consistently applied to all the body of revelation concerning creation (written and natural), some alternative interpretations require investigation. It has been shown by many dating techniques from geology, astronomy and physics that the view that The earth was formed as it is today in only a few days a few thousand years ago is at least an area where there is no obvious agreement between most of the scientific data and the young earth interpretation. The natural data supporting these dating results are the other authoritative information' revealed by God which could lead one to ask if a different interpretation of Genesis would fit the sum of the data better. The long age view is based on physical properties of nature such as ongoing geological change, astronomical distances and processes, and decay properties of radioisotopes. Taken all together, if the bounding assumptions are valid, these indicate an age of the universe between 10 and 20 billion years and an age of the earth of approximately 4.5 billion years. I do not know what the actual age is because it cannot be known if the assumptions are correct. The assumptions do appear to be self consistent. In any event these numbers are likely to change in the future. However if the past is any indication, we will see these numbers grow rather than shrink. This is indicative of the inherently conservative scientific process that has been used in refining these estimates.

Neither of these ages conflict with the context of Genesis 1. All that Genesis affirms is that the universe (the heavens) and the earth were created in the beginning. This event is undated in Genesis. This event is not detailed in scripture as to duration or process. If additional information is desired concerning these details, it must come from other sources Q natural history. And here again science may provide some illumination in this area.

I came away from the recent Hill Roberts/Rod Summers Evolution Seminar with mixed feelings. Part of their presentation was highly commendable. Brother Roberts did a superb job using statistical probability to show the impossibility of life originating by chance. Yet, there were several things about their approach in other areas that trouble me.

I was concerned with Roberts & Summer's treatment of time. It seemed obvious that they were attempting to fit 4.5+ billion years into the book of Genesis. They tried to stretch the Genesis genealogies to accommodate an old earth demanded by evolutionists. Rod Summers said the Mid-eastern concept of time is vastly different from our western mindset. He illustrated this by the amusing story of the Israel officials who left in the midst of a certain project, and then suddenly showed up 18 months later, ready to take up where they had left off. At their best, illustrations only illustrate; at their worse, they obfuscate. I fear that Summers illustration left an inaccurate impression.

It is false to say the Jews had no rational concept of time. I believe that people in Biblical times were at least as intelligent as modem man, and therefore, had the ability to comprehend time in a meaningful way. From the beginning, man has been governed by time: God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years" (Gen 1: 14, NKJ). I, therefore, present the following points for your consideration:

In discussing the genealogical family lines of Genesis 4-5, 10, etc. Roberts correctly pointed out that the word "beget" does not necessarily means a direct father/son relationship. It can, and perhaps often does mean "descendant of " I agree there could be some generational gaps in the lineage. Yet, how many could there be? In my opinion, there must be some outer limit on the number of generations that were skipped, lest the entire genealogical concept becomes meaningless!

In tracing the genealogy of Christ through Joseph, Matthew lists 40 individuals from Abraham to Jesus (Mat 1: 1- 17). In tracing the genealogy of Christ through Mary, Luke lists 75 individuals from Adam to Jesus. According to Luke, Abraham is 55 generations removed from Jesus, and Adam is another 20 generations removed from our Savior. In tracing the genealogy of Adam, Moses lists 9 generations from Adam to Noah (Gen 5:1-32). Jude acknowledges this chronology by speaking of Enoch as "the seventh from Adam" (Jud 1: 14).

Was Enoch seven generations removed from Adam? Was he seventy generations removed? Was he seven hundred generations removed? Was he seven thousand generations removed? I believe the answer we give to such a question is significant!

Bishop Usher added up the genealogical lists in the Bible and concluded that Adam and Eve lived approximately 4,000 years before Christ. He made no allowance for any generational gaps in the lineages. My question is this: how many gaps could we allow before the whole concept of genealogy is lost?

If we allow an average of 100 years per generation, it would take 40 generations to go from Adam to Jesus. In fact, an average of 100 years per generation is too high, because we know that Luke includes 75 generations from Adam to Jesus. If we divide Usher's 4,000 years by Luke's 75 generations, we get an average of 53 years per generation. Nevertheless, for our purposes let's stick with an average of 100 years per generation because (1) it is generous and (2) it is easy to compute.

Current evolutionary thought allows a million or so years for human evolution. If you are trying to make room for 1,000,000 years since the evolutionist say man first appeared, you are now discussing 10,000 generations. If you say man has been around for 500,000 years, you are discussing 5,000 generations. If you say man has been around for 250,000 years, it would have taken 2,500 generations from Adam to Jesus. If you say man has been around for a mere 100,000 years, you are still assuming approximately 1,000 generations from Adam to Jesus.

For the sake of argument, let's be conservative and say that man has been on the earth for 100,000 years. Luke says there were 75 generations from Jesus to Adam. Where are you going to stick the extra 925 generations and have the Biblical genealogy make any sense at all? A line with that many gaps is no line at all!

Using this approach to genealogy, all of us could claim to be the direct descendants of George Washington (even though he had no children)! That which proves too much proves too little. If you tried to gain admission to the Daughters of the American Revolution (D.A.R.) based on such sketchy data, they would laugh you out of the room!

I was concerned with Hill Roberts' apparent partial acceptance of the latest model of evolutionary thought. In discussing the fossil record on Saturday afternoon, Roberts clearly showed the absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. He skillfully exposed the flaws of the Darwinian model, and pointed out that now even leading evolutionary biologists reject the idea of slow, incremental change. Instead, the current fad in evolutionary circles is Steven J. Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium Theory." According to this theory, long periods of little change in living things are interrupted by short periods of rapid change.

Roberts argued that the fossil record seems to support this basic concept. I was struck by his effort to harmonize this model with the Biblical account of creation. In describing Punctuated Equilibrium, Roberts said, " "Now doesn't that sound like what is recorded in the book of Genesis: God said... God said... God said... let their be life..."

I cannot accept this viewpoint. In my opinion, the Roberts/Summer approach is no different in principle from the theistic evolutionists of yesteryear who tried to accommodate the Darwinian theory. Why should we compromise God's inspired Word simply to hitch our wagon to the latest theory espoused by unbelievers?

What is Roberts going to do when Gould's idea of Punctuated Equilibrium goes out of style and is replaced by another theory in a few years? Those who feet compelled to accommodate the Bible to the latest pronouncements of science are hooking their wagon to an unstable star. Scientific theories quickly change. (Are we experiencing global warming, or is the earth about to enter another ice age? Science has affirmed both in recent years.) Shall we be forced to run back and forth, always shouting "Me too! Me too! Me too!" Those who compromised their faith in order to accommodate Darwinianism look mighty foolish today. Something tells me they won't be the last...

The clear lesson is this: Don't compromise the truth of God's word in a futile effort to gain respectability in a world of unbelievers. Remember that leaders in evolutionary thought have utter contempt for Creationists of every stripe! Mr. Gould is an atheist. I am sure he feels nothing but scorn for those who would try to harmonize his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium with the Bible. We are not going to win any brownie-points with him by trying to find a "reasonable" compromise between the Bible and modem scientific theory!

I was also concerned with the general treatment of the geologic column that occurred in both the auditorium and classrooms. Roberts and Summer apparently accept the standard geologic column, and try to adapt the Biblical record of creation to it. In other words, the geological column records God's creative working over long periods of time.

This was not limited to the adult class in the auditorium. Our 4th grade son Nathan came home with a "Challenge Page" handout. One side of the page showed the standard geologic column. On the other side of the page were blank lines. The header said, "Can you match the fossil record with the Genesis Record?" Again, this clearly implied that the geologic column is a physical record of God's creative workings over long periods of time.

Why should we accept the geologic column as a starting point for our discussion? By Hill Roberts' own admission the entire column is not found intact anywhere in the world. If it did exist it would be over 75 miles tall!

Evolutionists use circular reasoning when discussing the geologic column and the age of the various rock layers: They date the rocks by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks! Please see the writings of Morris, Gish, etc. for more information.

I was concerned by Hill Roberts' rejection of the Institute for Creation Research's approach to flood geology. Roberts does NOT believe the geologic column is the result of Noah's flood. In the Q&A session, he specifically rejected the idea that the flood could have laid down the fossil record. "Limestone does not form under flood conditions," he said. Moreover, he said the flood could not explain the distinct fossil layers: "If you grind up distinct objects in a blender, you get one uniform mixture rather than distinct separate layers."

I have read many books and articles that I.C.R. has published over the years. It seems to me that such objections are based on a cursory reading of criticisms leveled by evolutionists against the concept of flood geology rather than a careful examination of the writings of creation scientists like Henry Morris, etc.

We should not be surprised that evolutionists are opposed to the concept of flood geology. I dare say their opposition is to a large degree philosophical. Their naturalistic world-view eliminates the very concept of God. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that they would oppose any interpretation of geology that would support belief in a worldwide, catastrophic judgment of God upon sinful humanity.

The Bible affirms the flood of Noah was catastrophic in scope (Gen 7:19-24; 2Pe 3:5-7). There are many books penned by creation scientists who effectively argue that Noah's flood laid down most, if not all, of the fossil record.

There may be some problems in reconciling certain geologic features with the catastrophic model of geology, but far fewer than those that are created by adopting a uniformitarian model. Please remember that there are problems with every theory. The best theory is the one that can be explained with the fewest secondary assumptions.

I can explain the dried and cracked mud between the rock layers in the Grand Canyon a lot easier than uniformitarian geologists can explain fossilized trees standing erect in layer after layer of rock, and yet showing no signs of weathering or decay on the upper portion of the tree!

In his presentation on time, Rod Summers' showed a picture of a large fossilized fish embedded upright in layer after layer of rock. However, if he and Roberts reject flood cosmology, how was that fish so preserved? If you explain the geologic column by saying that sediment was laid down gradually over thousands and thousands of years, how was that fish preserved intact? If it had fallen to the bottom of the ocean, and gradually been covered with sediment, its' remains would have decayed or been devoured. The only logical way one can explain this particular fossil, or for that matter large fossil beds, is that they were rapidly buried and the resulting sediment was then subjected to massive amounts of pressure, converting it to stone. This, my friends, is exactly the type conditions that would have existed in Noah's flood!

By starting from events in the Bible which can be correlated to events which are well dated in secular history, historians are able to date the life of Abraham to within about a hundred years either side of 1900 BC. Starting with the most recent times and working back, the events of the New Testament are dated with good precision due to the correlation of Bible events with secular events, such as the reigns of Roman officials. Certain events associated with the Jewish captivities can the dated to the exact year, such as the fall of Samaria in 722 BC. The reigns of David, Solomon and the succeeding kings of Israel and Judah can all be dated to within a few years. The events of the Egyptian bondage, the exodus and the conquest of Canaan are fairly well correlated with Egyptian history and archeological dating at various Canaanite cities. Abram's homeland of Ur of the Chaldees is known archeologically from the excavations of Sir Charles Woolley in 1922 and 1934, although he was explicitly excavating the later period of Babylon. Because of such historical correlation's back to the period of Abraham, most of the Bible events after Genesis 11 can be dated with reasonable accuracy. The various genealogies and kings lists do not of themselves form the basis for these dates leading back to Abraham. It is the correlation of Bible places and events with other outside sources of dating information that fix the dates.

However, beyond the time of Abraham no such clear correlations with other known historical events are currently possible. Events such as the construction of the tower of Babel, the flood, Cain and Abel, the fall of man, or the creation have not yet been unambiguously correlated with secular sources of information. There are many ancient secular sources containing references to such a flood, but they are not sufficiently historical for purposes of dating. However, the Bible itself contains lists of descendants from Abram to Noah back to Adam which contain the ages of the people in the genealogy. By adding the ages in Genesis 5 and 11 from the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (as in the King James version) one would place the date of the creation of Adam at about 4000 BC., roughly 2000 years prior to the time of Abraham, or about 6000 years ago. If the Septuagint text is used (this is the version Jesus quoted from) one would place Adam about 6000 to 7000 BC. This is essentially the method used by some Bible students to date these pre-Abrahamic events. The sixteenth century Anglican Bishop Ussher did just that (as a 'graduate thesis') and the translators of the King James version included his dates in the marginal references. He defined 4004 BC. as the date of creation. Lightfoot further 'refined' this crude estimate to the exact date and time of day for the creation of Adam!

 Natural Chronology

This date (4000 - 7000 BC.) is essentially disregarded by current historians due to conflicting evidence from various fields of knowledge. It is not the purpose here to give a technical evaluation of such conflicting evidence. Such is well documented in most textbooks on the various subjects. However, the principal conflicting evidence will be cataloged to indicate the nature of these studies.

Astronomy: Great distances to the most distant space objects indicate that it would take 10 to 20 billion years for their light to reach us. The light which we see from them today is presumed to have left the most distant stars 10 to 20 billion years ago.

Stellar fusion: Thermonuclear fusion processes indicate typical star lifetimes of about 10 billion years for a star such as our sun. The sun exhibits a spectral content of a star midway through its burn cycle. Therefore the sun is presumed to be about 4-5 billion years old.

Nuclear Decay: There are four radioactive decay series: neptunium, uranium, actinium and thorium. Of these only the thorium, uranium and actinium series occurs naturally on earth. No natural neptunium exists on earth. The decay times for the three naturally abundant series are all longer than a billion years. The neptunium series decay half-life is about 2 million years. The only naturally existing radioactively decaying elements (there are 21 such isotopes) all have half-lives in excess of a billion years. Others isotopes with shorter half-lives can be made artificially in high-energy accelerators and reactors, but their life-times are all measured to be significantly less than a billion years. This is interpreted in the following way. All the radioactive elements were made in a large high-energy event at the beginning of the cosmos a few billion years ago. Isotopes with half-lifes comparable to the age of the universe are still found in nature because they have not yet had time to fully decay. Isotopes with half-lifes much shorter than the age of the universe have already decayed away so that they can no longer be found in nature. The natural data is fully consistent with this interpretation. (As a side note, this data also very strongly indicates that the universe did have a definite beginning, refuting the previously popular scientific notion that the universe is eternal, with no beginning.)

The same process can the used to varying degrees of precision to date certain (igneous) rock layers according to the amounts of radioactive materials and decay products found therein. Such methods indicate that the oldest Earth rocks found as yet are about 3.6 billion years old. Moon rocks have been dated to about 4.5 billions years. The oldest rocks containing animal fossils are Cambrian rocks dated to about 570 million years ago by these methods. The dates obtained for the earliest people span a period from about 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. [Carbon-14 dating is never used for anything older than at most 50,000 years (30,000 is practical upper limit) because it decays so quickly. Its half-life is only 5730 years.]

Geology: Various physical process appear to take a long time to produce the results attributed to them. Measured rates of erosion and sedimentation indicate that some geological formations (not all) would have taken a very long time to become as they are today. Drip formations in caves form slowly, speeding up the drip actually kills the formation growth rate. The ongoing motion of the continents leading to folding, faulting, mountain building, and earthquakes is sufficiently slow to indicate that the gross features of the Earth change, but at very slow rates. For them to have come to the state observed today would have taken several million years, at the rates we see today.

Archeology: Many archeological sites are dated relatively according to styles of pottery and tools found at the occupancy levels of the site. Many of these dates rely on radioactive carbon dating to provide absolute dates as far back as 30,000 years ago. Jericho's occupied history is currently estimated to extend back to about 10,000 years ago. At the lowest level the stone tools found are the same as those found in typical cave sites. It is thought to be one of the earliest known cities of man. Other sites of cave or rural settings are dated back into the tens of thousands of years. For example, it is thought that the first natives of the Americas migrated from Asia across the Siberian-Alaskan straits about 30,000 years ago.

Biology: The rate at which coral reefs form has been measured. The thicknesses of such reefs indicate that some living, as well as fossil reefs, would have taken many millions of years to grow to such thicknesses.

Many of these methods are subject to question. In certain cases there is significant conflicting evidence or alternate interpretations of the evidence. However, suffice it to say that students of these fields accept these evidences and reject the idea that the universe, the earth, and man are all only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Long ages are not just accepted in order to provide enough time for organic evolution. Rather, it is just the most natural and simplest interpretation of the physical evidence based on current understanding of chemistry and physics. There are many assumptions involved in these various dating methods. In general these assumptions cannot be validated. However, please note that none of the above fields of study uses any assumption concerning time requirements for organic evolution. These evidences are independent of that theory. If the theory of organic evolution had never existed, these studies would still have reached essentially the same conclusions about ancient times. Much of the geological evidence for long ages had already lead to such conclusions prior to Darwin's theories. In fact, this allowed Darwin to think about what might happen over such long time frames, not the other way around.

Having presented this catalog of the broad areas providing physical dating evidence, we will now return to the issue of Bible genealogies and the times given in them. In order to use the Bible genealogies by themselves to establish a chronology of events several assumptions must be made:

1) the Bible text analyzed must have the correct original numbers,

2) the genealogy must be complete, no generations left out,

3) the genealogies must overlap all the events being dated,

4) the purpose of the genealogies must be consistent with a chronological use.

We will examine several aspects of Bible genealogies and then attempt to evaluate whether these assumptions are valid.

We will use Matthew's record of Jesus' lineage as our first example of Hebrew genealogy. The general form is " ... the genealogy of Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Matt 1:1 The detailed genealogy from Abraham to Jesus follows in verses 2-16. Several features must be noted concerning this form. Probably foremost for his analysis is that this genealogy is wrong. Well, that is what we would say today if someone claimed Jesus was David's son. We understand that this means Jesus was descended from David. However, in Hebrew style Jesus was David's son. Sonship meant descendancy, it was not a strict term denoting direct parent-child relationship. This is a very important characteristic to understand if genealogies are to be properly understood. Sometimes the descendancy is stated from the other perspective: David begat Jesus. Begat is an archaic English term meaning to be the father of . Abraham is frequently spoken of as the father of Israel. This doesn't mean directly fathered: Isaac was Abraham's direct son. This usage is in the same sense that we speak of Washington as the father of the United States. So we need to be clear on whether a genealogy is giving direct father-son relationships or is speaking in general ancestral terms. It is not always obvious, and not even possible to know for sure in some cases. This general usage is prevalent in the Genesis genealogy of Genesis 10.

As a second feature of Matthew's short genealogy, we note the absence of any time markers. Clearly this genealogy was not intended to date the lives of the people mentioned. What then was the purpose? A study of Matthew's book will show that Matthew apparently was writing to an audience well studied in the Old Law and especially the prophets of old. He repeatedly points out obscure events in the life of Jesus that fulfilled those prophecies. The first obvious example of this occurs in 1:22. Even the name given Jesus was a fulfillment of such a prophecy. Bearing this in mind, now consider the sermon Peter preached on Pentecost. What was his point to that Jewish audience? It was to show that the Jesus they had killed was the promised Messiah of prophecy. His Jewish audience was convinced. What they failed to recognize when Jesus performed the miracles during His life, they saw immediately after the resurrection when it was pointed out to them how He was the very one they had been looking for all along. Fulfilled prophecy convinced those Jews. A few years later we find Matthew using the same approach in his gospel that Peter used so effectively on Pentecost guided by the Spirit. This is clear from the strong emphasis Matthew placed on Jesus the King as He fulfilled the prophecies of old. That messiah of prophecy had to have the proper lineage to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of a Messiah on the throne of David. He must be the son of David to rule the peaceable kingdom on David's throne. He must be of the seed of Abraham to fulfill God's promise to Abraham that through his Seed all the nations of the Earth would be blessed, Gen 12 and Gal 3:16. This is exactly the first point Matthew substantiates in his gospel: Jesus was a legal heir to the throne of David, a direct descendant from Abraham. Matthew apparently used the legal descendency through Joseph to emphasis Jesus as King. Luke, writing to a more cosmopolitan audience, showed that Jesus also had the appropriate physical lineage through Joseph's father-in-law, Mary's father, Luke 3:23-27. Notice also that Luke did not stop at Abraham, but traced the lineage all the way back through Adam to God. Comparing these genealogies, it is apparent that different points were being made. Matthew wanted to show Jesus the King to his Jewish audience. Luke wanted to show Jesus the Son of God to his friend Theophilus, the 'god lover'. Neither of these writers were at all interested as to when these events occurred, only that they did occur.

Returning to Matthew's genealogy, notice that he very neatly divides the genealogy into three groups of fourteen generations each. This is an important clue about the mindset behind Hebrew genealogies. In actuality, Matthew force-fitted his genealogy into this structure. To even get his list into three sets of fourteen requires that both David and Jeconiah be counted twice. In 1:8 he left out certain ones ( Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah & Azariah) which he and his hearers surely knew of from the parallel in 1 Chronicles 3:11-13. This was obviously intentional. Why would he have done this? Why would the Holy Spirit have inspired such an approach? Matthew gives the answer in verse 17. He was reflecting the three major periods of Hebrew history since Abraham. Further, to do so in a structure of 3 x ( 7 doubled) was a very clever literary device tailored to his Hebrew audience. Three was the 'divine' number; seven stood for completeness - and multiplied by two indicated redoubled completeness. In other words, this was not just a genealogy but one which was the complete, divine fulfillment of the Hebrew prophets. The actual history did not make this point, rather Matthew was using his genealogy to make the point. This theme is carried all the way through Matthew's gospel. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. As a side benefit, genealogies with numerical structure made them easy to remember. The audience knew the ancient genealogies well enough to understand that Matthew wasn't trying to rewrite history, but rather to present it in a way which they would appreciate. To his audience this would have been very effective. However, most of the impact is lost on us today. We even think is seems deceitful. We read that Jesus was the son of David and that's what we think was intended. However, as noted earlier, the Bible words used for the father-son relationship, begat and son, didn't necessarily mean to the Hebrew what it does to us. To them it carried more the sense of descended from rather than direct son of. In our words Jesus was the heir of David. When this is understood, then it becomes obvious how the Holy Spirit could have inspired Matthew to honestly write that Jesus descended from David who descended from Abraham. That is exactly the way it was.

Does this feature show up in the Old Testament itself? Compare the genealogy which Ezra the scribe gives in Ezra 7:2 with that given in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. Notice that Ezra leaves out Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanan between Meraioth and Azariah. As an inspired scribe, surely Ezra knew the genealogy given in Chronicles. But still he chose to abbreviate it, to leave out some of the descendant links. He left out more than he included in this section. Two named generations actually spans eight generations! We are seeing the Hebrew characteristic of using genealogy to show the flow of 'official-dom' and lineage rather than to show strict historical father-son relationships. This same effect shows up again in 1 Chronicles 26:24 where Shebul is said to be the 'son' of Gershom. About four hundred years separated these descendants!

If the sequence of members in a genealogy does not reliably represent strict history then what does the sequence mean. Again scripture provides us the answer on a case by case basis. We have seen the motivation behind Matthew's approach already. Ezra was listing only those significant in the lineage of the throne. Consider Genesis 5:32. There the sons of Noah are given in sequence as Shem, Ham and Japheth. Here it would appear that Japheth is the youngest, Ham the next, with Shem being the eldest. However in Genesis 9:24 we learn that in reality Ham, not Japheth, is the youngest. The sequence given in 5:32 reflects the relative importance of each to the context of events that transpire in subsequent history. Likewise in Exodus 2 it appears that Moses was born before Aaron. Aaron is not mentioned while the older sister Miriam is. Yet later we learn that Aaron was three years old when Moses was born. This illustrates that the Hebrew writers were concerned more with significance than in giving complete family histories. Could you imagine writing the story of Moses today and not even mentioning that he had a three year old brother, especially considering the peril of young male Hebrew children? Today we would surely point out that it was the very abundance of little Aarons that placed all the little Moses babies in danger. The point to be learned here is that the ancient Hebrew did not write according to our twentieth century western literary forms. We sequence, they prioritized. We list everything, they only included the important. Frequently, the Hebrew writer would even adjust the sequence of events to fit the relative importance or similarity of events. Matthew's gospel is not at all chronological, it is classic Hebrew with the parables collected together, miracles collected together, and sayings collected into major speechs. Moses' account of the events at Mount Sinai is not sequential either, which accounts for our confusion when we study Exodus today.

In keeping with this tendency to emphasize the significant was the practice of referring to a whole lineage by the chief member of the lineage, as seen earlier in Matthew 1:1. The Israelites are a good example themselves. They were known as 'Israel', the name of the man who fathered the lineage of the twelve tribes. The tribes were known by the father of the tribe, such as Levi or Simeon. We are so accustomed to these names that we forget the significance such a usage has when we come to the genealogies. This kind of usage is especially prevalent in the genealogies of Genesis 10. One person's name may be used to refer to a whole nation, or tribe or even a geographical region. For example, in 10:2 the 'sons' of Japheth are countries, not just individuals. The same is true in 10:4. The plural 'im ending of these names is the Hebrew plural indicating this broader aspect of the relation. This also occurs in 10:7 & 13. In 10:15 a man brings forth a place. In 10:16-18 a man brings forth individuals and tribes. Verses 5, 20 and 31 make very clear the non-specific aspect of these genealogies of Shem, Ham and Japheth. In context, all of these genealogies of peoples and places are leading up to the incident at the tower of Babel. Even later, this practice was still in vogue. Kings of northern Israel were called Omri by other nations, even though King Omri was long dead a gone. Some of these were not even descendants Omri, yet his name is used to represent the later kings in official documents. Daniel referred to Bellshazar's grandfather Nebuchadnezzar as his father , Daniel 5. One author put it this way . "If uncle Harry was a horse thief, then usually uncle Harry wouldn't be included in the genealogy." If uncle Harry was a brave king, then you could count on his name showing up on every genealogy which could reasonably claim him.

  But what about the specific genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11? They do sound very chronological to us. "This is the account of Shem. Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters. When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters." Gen 11:10-13. But as just seen explicitly in the preceding examples, the words begat and son are used to indicate descendency, and the name of the prominent members of a lineage were used to refer to the whole lineage. In light of that,the genealogies of Genesis take on a whole new flavor to us. Shem's genealogy could easily mean that when Shem was 100 years old he fathered a child who was in the lineage of Arphaxed, the name by which the lineage became known. This is just the way these lineages are described in the preceding chapter, Genesis 10. We don't know where this is case and where it isn't. We just don't know. That's the problem with trying to derive a chronology from such a genealogy. The same is true in Genesis 5. For example, 5:9 reads "and Enosh lived 90 years and became the father of Kenan." Kenan may or may not have been the paternal son of Enosh. He could have been a grandson, or a great-grandson or a great, great ... great-grandson. The scripture doesn't provide enough insight into this lineage to decide the matter. In fact, there are some very curious situations that arise if these genealogies are taken in too chronological a manner - such as having Noah still alive during the time of Abraham! Try it yourself, add up the ages.

What then was the point of putting the ages of births and deaths in the genealogies of Genesis if not to serve as a chronology? In order to answer this question one must see the severity of the situation for man following the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. They both sinned and would suffer the consequence of their decision to disobey God. They would die, physically and spiritually. But a promise of hope was also given in Genesis 3:15. The seed of woman will crush the serpent's head. Imagine Eve's relief - her child would save them. So along comes Cain. Is he the seed? No! He kills Abel and is cast out himself. He is certainly not the seed. He caused more innocent death. Rather than crushing the Serpent, he likewise rebels against God and goes off living in the fear of his own death. All the 'sons' of Adam father more seed, yet for each one, for each lineage fathered, no matter how long the patriarch lived, the end result was always the same - 'and he died,' 5:8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 31. They seemed beyond the power of death due to their fantastically long lives, yet eventually even these ancients DIED. God really did mean it when He said, 'the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.' Not only you, but your children, and their children, and there is no beating the consequences of sin. Adam and Eve opened the way for Satan to bring sin to earth through the choices of man. Like Pandora's box, man cannot close the lid on sin and therefore cannot escape the consequences of his sin. The natural result of rebellion against the Father of Life is - death. No matter how long God gives us to live, in the end we die because of our sins. (Read Romans 1-3 for essentially this same point.)

But wait, there is a contradiction right there in the very first genealogy of Genesis, 5:22 & 24. Enoch walked with God and was not. The phrase 'and he died' does not apply to Enoch. Why not? Enoch was a type for the coming seed promised to Eve. Even in the times of old, man was given the demonstrated assurance that God could defeat death for those that live in Him. It is exactly this salvation from death that the whole Bible is about. From Genesis 3:15 on, the Bible shows how God brought about the end from the beginning according to that which He purposed before He even made man or our world. The whole of this plan has been carried out using those who were the exceptions: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, Samuel, David, Jehoash, Hezekiah, Mary and at last Jesus himself. At just the point when it seems God's plan is foiled, the faithful exception is there to pick up the plan and carry it forward. Enoch was the exceptional one of his day. Jesus is ours, Romans 3:21- 8:39.

This explanation accounts for including the ages of the ancestors of Adam in Genesis 5. However, this would not account for the ages given in Genesis 11 for the ancestors of Noah. Clearly, the fall of man is not the immediate context for this genealogy. The closing phrase 'and he died' is not a feature of the genealogy in Genesis 11. That is not the emphasis. There is an entirely different contrast to be seen. Prior to the flood, one intriguing feature of the ancients were the long lifetimes recorded. Remember that these long lives were contrasted to the surety of death. Now, after the flood the lifetimes immediately have become shorter, eventually coming to ages more typical of ages today. (The reference in Genesis 6:3 is probably not referring to man's reduced life span, but more likely to the time remaining until the flood.) Many things were different as a result of the flood: it rained now, man ate animals, and man didn't live as long. Some have suggested that this reduced longevity would have been the result of the destruction of a supposed vapor canopy which shielded man from life-threatening UV radiation prior to the flood. Whether this is so cannot be proved from the scriptures. However man no longer lived as long as he used to. Man is to be a humbled short-lived being in the post-diluvian period. The ages in Genesis show how man had lost his grasp on life. (Unfortunately, man quickly loses the lesson of this humbling. In chapter 11 he is building the tower of Babel on the foundation of man's pride.) Both in Genesis 5 and 11 there is a contextual purpose for the times given which does not relate in any way to chronology.

  The matter of the numbers in the text must be addressed. When various manuscripts and versions of the Bible are compared, the most significant feature is the amazing sameness. The ancient handwritten copies of the Bible are all amazingly the same. So much so that we can be confident today that the Bibles we use are as good a copy of the originals as was the copy of the Old Testament upon which Jesus was raised and quoted from. However there are some differences among the various copies which arose due to the hand copying process. Most of these differences are inconsequential, some are so subtle that they cannot be translated as different in our English versions. However, the one area where many differences occur is in the numbers given in scripture. Doctrinally there is absolutely no consequence to these differences. It is easy to see how copy errors could have been introduced into the text by the scribes. People just make mistakes - especially when copying down numbers. But it is precisely an accuracy in the numbers which using a genealogy as a chronology assumes. Suppose a 6000 became a 60 by mistake, only later to be 'corrected' to 600. Errors of this type are much more likely than errors where a 60 becomes a 61. These are just the problems which must all be resolved in order to use a Bible genealogy as a chronology. At the present time, many of the numbers in the Old Testament are in minor disagreement among the various texts. This is clearly a result of unresolved copy errors. It is a trivial flaw in our current versions. However, it makes the use of the genealogical ages suspect when applied as chronometers. The known differences between the Masoretic manuscript and the Greek Septuagint version leads to differences in the time of Adam of nearly 1300 years. And that is just the differences we know of. Which of the readings are correct would be difficult to say. It would be foolish to propose that those are the only possible errors in the numbers. Those are just the ones where we know a difference exists. Lower Criticism and archeology has helped to clarify some of these differences and restore the original text. Generally, Christians should welcome such help from the sciences, although that is not always the case.

Most Bible scholars would limit the magnitude of the total possible error so that the time of Adam is about 10,000 years ago. This would place the date of Adam at about 8,000 BC. No particular basis for this limitation is given. It seems to be more of an educated guess. Even so, since the time of Abraham is known to have been about 2,000 BC., even this stretch out in time is significant. From Abraham to Adam is given to be as short as about 2,000 years (Ussher's chronology of 4004 BC. to about 2000 BC.) to as long as 6,000 years (Septuagint-based dating of 8000 BC. to 2000 BC.). Just these known differences in version numbers leads to as mush as a 300% variance. This numerical variation, coupled with good archeological evidence at the city of Jericho for initial occupancy beginning around 8,000 BC., has caused many Bible students of this issue to say that man is at a minimum of 10,000 years old. This approaches the ages given for Cro-Magnon artifacts dated to about 30,000 years ago. The 10,000 year estimate doesn't even take into account the issues raised previously about gaps in the accounts. It doesn't seem beyond reason that such factors could easily stretch this time frame out by a factor of ten to as much as 100,000 years. The Neanderthal artifacts are the earliest known remains of man which are unchallenged. Everything earlier, such as Erectus and Afarensis remains, is based on very limited partial remains, none of which give evidence of clearly human systematic behavior as for Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. Each of these later races of man exhibited all the characteristics of man including reverence for life after death, creative and artistic abilities, family living including care for the elderly and infirmed. Erectus, found widely around the old world, exhibits none of these traits. Chipped stone tools and ashes found at Erectus sites have been the markers used to insist Erectus was a pre-human cave-apeman. However, no-one has been able to show that Erectus actually made the tools or fires, and there is considerable evidence to show that Erectus remains are so prolific because Erectus made a tidy meal for something that had a taste for brains. The usual interpretation is that Erectus was a cannibal pre-human. Equally possible is that the Erectus animal was exactly what he appears to be: a meal for something else.

  One last feature of the numbered genealogies must be considered. The Bible itself never adds the times to arrive at a date based on a genealogical record. Never. This lone fact should be compelling in and of itself. An example of where such an exercise leads, as noted earlier, is that Noah as well as all the post-diluvians would still have been living contemporaries with Abraham. Abraham would have been fifty years old when Noah died! The Bible certainly gives no other indication that such was the case. A grave warning was issued against those who would so add to the words of scripture such unlikely conclusions. Ussher's dates were added into the margins of many printings of the Bible for hundreds of years. It was man's conclusions. If the earth and man are as old as they appear to be, how many people in this century have rejected the Bible over what they misguidedly perceived to be an insurmountable conflict? We see how grave are the potential consequences of such presumptuous additions by human interpretation of God's word.

  A closely related issue is the date of creation itself. How long ago did God create the heavens and the earth? As to this the Bible is clear: 'in the beginning.' No date is given in Genesis 1:1. To assign one based on scripture is presumptuous. If we knew when Adam lived, and if we knew the exact meaning of 'yom' each instance it is used in Genesis 1, and if we knew the time between each 'yom' of Genesis 1, and if we knew how long the earth was formless and void before God initiated the events of the first yom; then, we might hazard a guess at the time of creation. Some Bible students propose answers, but none could possibly be certain. Some suggest that we can use the days of Genesis to trace time back before Adam. The word for day, yom, has at least three different meanings and all three are used within the first two chapters of Genesis. In 1:5 yom first means the daylight, then in the same verse it is used in the cyclical sense, a full day or cycle. In 2:4 yom is used to encompass all six yom (yamin) in Genesis 1. Some say that because Ex 20:11 related the days of creation to our week then that requires that the creation days were also a contiguous week of 24 hour days each. This is interesting since a solar day would not have been applicable until the forth yom or day. The fact that Exodus 20:11 bases the physical sabbath on the creation sabbath does not logically require that the creative days be contiguous 24 hour periods. Such reasoning is called a non sequitur in logic. They are the basis, yes, but not necessarily the same. The emphasis is on the seventh day of rest, not on the length of the week. The creation days give a basis for the physical week. To claim that they are the exact same time span is without justification. Many Hebrew holy day celebrations used shorter periods of time for events that transpired over a much longer time. For example, the eight day Feast of Tabernacles commemorated the entire time of wilderness wanderings. During each day specific events of the exodus were commemorated. No-one suggests that they only wandered around Sinai for eight days. It doesn't follow logically. In this example it is obvious that such is illogical because we know that the actual wanderings covered about thirty eight years. One time span is used for another. This is not uncommon in the Bible. Daniel's seventy weeks were a prophetic type of the time span from his day to the Christ. They represented the time span but were not in fact the time span.

To claim that the first three days were twenty four hours long prior to the existence of solar days on the fourth day is at best disingenuous. To claim that all the events described in Genesis 2 occurred in one solar day is incredible. Genesis 2 even goes to some lengths to show us that considerable time had passed before Adam is given his suitable mate. The expression "This is now..." in 2:23 carries the impact of "Wow, at last!" The statement in 2:5 that it hadn't yet rained and no man had yet tilled the fields doesn't make sense if the fields are only forty eight hours old. What was a creation day? Maybe we would be better off to translate the Hebrew word as literally as possible. In Hebrew it simply meant 'time'. Context is used by the translators to assist in understanding what time was in the writer's view. Some insist that because these are numbered times, then it must mean a regular calendar day, as it does in other contexts. Maybe, maybe not. In Deuteronomy 10:10 time is numbered just as in Genesis 1:5 'one day', but it means forty days instead of one day. In this instance the translators use the generic word 'time' instead of day. If the word had uniformly been translated as 'time', these conflicts would likely never have arisen. Try it. Instead of 'day' use 'time' in Genesis 1. It doesn't sound wrong at all. (It shouldn't, that's the way the Spirit inspired Moses to write it in the limited Hebrew vocabulary.) When was the beginning? In the beginning, of course! How long were the six times of Genesis 1? I don't know. Does it really matter?

  All dating methods depend on assumptions. This is just as true of Bible 'Chronology' as it is for any of the scientific methods. What about those assumptions needed to use genealogies as clocks? Relative to the first assumption given earlier, it is seen that we are not able currently to certify that the text of today accurately reflects the original numbers given in the genealogies. As to the second assumption, we have seen that when genealogies can be cross compared, gaps exist - often as a result of intentional literary form. Sometimes the gaps are wider than what is included. As we have seen at least with respect to the origin of the universe and the earth there is no genealogical sequence of time to overlap with these events. The events simply reside 'in the beginning.' Finally, we have seen that the genealogies of the Hebrew were manifestly not intended to be used as chronometers. Even the subsequent Bible writers do not make such an application. These assumptions are all falsified. The earth may certainly be younger than 4.5 billion years, but Biblically it could be even older. No matter. The Bible does not address the issue.

  Various evidences from astronomy, physics, geology and archeology were cataloged above as 'conflicting' evidences. It is very important to understand that the conflict is only with regard to inferred conclusions such as Usher's, which were based on false assumptions. There is no conflict between the physical data and what the Bible actually says. The Bible is silent on the age of man and the time of creation. The warning principles given to Timothy and Titus concerning endless genealogies and foolish speculations may be more applicable to us than we realize.

Suggested Reading:

• Wm. Green, Biblical Chronology, reprint, 1898 (Strongly suggested reading).
• Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, Navpress, 1994 (Strongly suggested reading).
• Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing, 1986.
• Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress, 1993.
• F. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time, Intervarsity Press, 1972.
• J.D. Thomas, ed. Evolution and Faith, ACU Press, 1988.

Why are so many good Bible students (better than this writer by far) so defensive of a young earth? Because they seek to counter the hypothesis of organic evolution. Here there is a clear conflict. Biologists say we're nothing more than an animal of dubious heritage and limited value in the overall economy of nature. The Bible presents man as a unique product of a Divine Creator. Further the Bible specifically presents man as a supernaturally created being, rather than a product of naturalistic, Godless evolution. This created aspect is reflected many times throughout scripture, not just in Genesis. The conflict is: organic evolution of man from a chemical soup; or, man created in the image of God. Please note the conflict is not over genetic adaptation and speciation (micro-evolution), both camps embrace that. The evolutionary hypothesis contested is that which extrapolates speciations to account for all the different kinds of life including man - phylogenation or macro-evolution. Speciation can occur relatively rapidly but the broader scope of soup-to-man evolution requires genetic eons.

The simple logic is to defend a young earth by focusing on the Bible genealogies and strangely interpreted sets of physical data so that there could not be enough time for macro-evolution to occur.

I fear that the simple logic is flawed. It assumes the answer sought. It uses suspicious exegesis of the genealogies. The scientific methods used to obtain short ages are based on assumptions which also cannot be verified, just as are the typical dating methods which are rejected for being based on assumptions. Many of the young age methods wind up using a form of the uniformitarian assumption just as do the long age methods. Both young and old age methods tend to ignore conflicting data. What a mess! Is it any wonder the schools don't want to get tangled up in that?

What is needed is a much deeper study: a presentation of the physical evidence without interpretation and then a survey of interpretations. What is needed is an evaluation of the probability that the balanced processes and complex instincts of nature resulted by chance. Try to talk about the patterns of nature without using concepts of design - it can't be done. Account for the origin of the universe. Account for the order of the universe. Account for the improbable fact of life. Analyze the proposed evolutionary genetic mechanisms. Find natural selection stabilizing, not evolving, the species. Find a way to beat the genetic burden imposed by the mutation rates required to cause favorable changes. Find no fossil examples of speciation leading to other kinds. Look at the fossils: see all the major phyla appear all at once in the Cambrian layer; see adaptive variations conserving the fossil kinds; see that all the fossils kinds can be classified in the same distinct taxa as the existing forms of life; see sudden appearance of plants, fish, birds and beasts. See extinctions occur when catastrophe strikes and uniformitarianism fails. Find no decent link between early men and the apes. Find the dubious data of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus. Find a lot of bad science and bad theology along the way. In contrast to these dubious and fragmentary links, find Neanderthal burying his dead in a bed of flowers. Find Neanderthal's brain to be bigger than yours. Find Cro-Magnon's art. Find skull bones contemporary with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon which look just like the skulls of modern men. Read Genesis 1. Then - read the rest of the Bible with the respect due the Word of God!

1. In the origins tool (#3), how many years did we allow the universe to attempt to make a single non-living enzyme protein by chance processes?
2. In light of these results, does it make much difference what the actual age of the earth is (anywhere between a few thousand to a few billion years)?
3. In light of these results, a earth 4.5 billion years old would be:

• What are three assumptions that are made for any statement about a measured time span?
• What are some of the techniques scientist use to study the age of the universe and the acre of the earth" For each give whether the technique seems to indicate an old or young age for things?

1. Does Genesis say in a clear unarguable manner exactly how long ago God made the universe?

• Does Genesis say in a clear unarguable manner exactly how long ago God made the earth?
• When does the Bible say these things were created (Genesis 1: 1)?
• Does science agree or disagree with what Genesis 1: 1 actually says about the time issue?

1. Does science know for sure how old the universe or the earth are?
2. If the Bible doesn't clearly say, and science doesn't clearly know, how wise is it to argue (or worry) over time questions?

The 15th century catholic bishop Ussher assumed he could on the basis of the Bible's genealogies tell the year In which the creation occurred. He placed it In 4004 BC. Lightfoot extended this logic to determine the exact date and hour for the creation of Adam! It has since been shown that such a method is wrong since Hebrew genealogies are incomplete. How much incomplete is totally unknown. Compare Ezra 7 with I Chron 6. See also Matt 1:1. The Hebrew did not give genealogies for purposes of dating history. For example, Matthew artificially structured his genealogy around three sets of fourteen generations for purposes of Jewish numerology (3 x 2 x 7) -- not to be complete. The purpose of the genealogies of Genesis 4 seems to emphasize that no matter how long men lived after the fall they all eventually died -- so and so lived xxx years and he died., To use the genealogy for some other purpose violates the context in which it was given -- after the fall of Adam man could now expect not only his own death but that of his lineage as well; sin always leads to death. In fact this sets the stage for the rest of the scheme of redemption revealed in scripture.

It is difficult for the western mind to comprehend ancient genealogical structure. The concept of "begat" In bible genealogies is descendancy rather than strict father-son relationship. Any member of a lineage may be referred to by the most prominent member of the lineage -illustrated by secular references to Israelite King Omrils descendants as Omri himself, or Nebuchadnezzar being named as Belshazzar's father in Daniel 5. The times given for the birth of offspring can then refer to the beginning of the lineage which led to the listed descendant rather than the descendant himself. In spite of the apparently detailed "begat' series In Genesis 4, for the reasons mentioned above, many bible scholars acknowledge that gaps probably exist In this series just as exist In all the others. How many and for how long could not possibly be determined from the text. More recent conservative estimates usually extend the age of man to nearly twice that determined by Ussher -- to well over 10,000 years. This makes the estimates more in line with the good archeological evidence at Jerico for civilizations dating back to 8,000 B.C. Both religious liberals and conservatives put extra time into the genealogy to fit some piece of extra-biblical data. It is not really a question anymore of if there are gaps but only how much extra time is going to be allowed and upon what extra-biblical data the gapping is to be based.

Ussher also assumed there were no undated verses in scripture. This is in error. Gen 1:1 is undated. The word translated "was' in 1:2 can also be translated *became". Which is it in 1:2? The duration which Adam and Eve lived in the garden is unknown. Adam's age may only refer to the time after the fall, for what meaning did lifetime have before the fall? The time between the six days of creation is unspecified. Scriptures such as Exodus 20:11 always refer back to the six days of creation, never to the week of creation, there is a difference. All of these are examples of undated events.

For many years creationists have sought to falsify evolution by demonstrating evidence for a young earth consistent with Ussher's date. It became a simplistic 'pat" answer: "evolution can't be right because the earth just isn't old enough.' So closely was the age of the earth tied to evolution in creationist writings that to accept an old earth is in many people's minds equivalent to accepting evolution. It is true that evolution requires long ages but it does not follow that long ages prove evolution or dispute the bible's descriptions of creation. To put it another way, if the earth is very old and not very young then that does not mean that evolution must be accepted and the bible rejected. Christians who may accept the earth as very old should not automatically be assumed to be theistic evolutionists. If one does not accept the theory of macro-evolution then one cannot be a theistic evolutionist no matter how old the earth appears to be. Likewise those who accept the earth as very old should not assume that others who believe It to be very young are *Ignorant religious throwbacks". In this writer's opinion the age of the earth is scientifically and biblically unresolved. The majority of the evidence gives the appearance of long ages, but there is also significant conflicting data. It may be old or It may be younger.

The bible gives no dates other than 'In the beginning...' There is no creedal position a Christian must accept as to the meaning of the days of creation. Many possible things can be understood to be meant In the Genesis days without necessarily being inconsistent with an inspired revelation view of scripture. At least-14 different views of the days of creation exist among conservative bible scholars who adhere to a belief In the Inspiration of scripture. There are many aspects of Genesis which puzzle bible students. Indefinite articles precede the first 5 days while the definite article precedes the 6th day. What does that mean? Has the seventh 'day' ever ended for God's rest? What meaning does 'evening and morning' have before the sun was set to establish such chronologies on the fourth day? Does evening to morning denote only a partial day? God says he created (Hebrew: bara, from nothing) only in 1:1,21,27 for the heavens and earth, animal life and man. Elsewhere he uses the word for making (Hebrew: asah, to make or assemble). Does that indicate anything about the times Involved? Is a day for God the same as for man? Why did God go to so much trouble to make the universe and the earth appear so old If In fact It isn't? Why does Genesis 2:5 & 6 discuss the plants and cultivation in terms of an extended time if only 48 hours were involved? How long did Adam live before Eve? How long did It take for Adam to get lonely and be shown all the animals God made? Genesis 2 certainly sounds like he may have lived for more than 24 hours before God provided him with Eve. If so then some of the events assigned to day 6 actually transpired over a longer period. So many things we would like to know God simply did not tell us. Puzzles such as these account for the variety of Interpretations of Genesis. Views span the gamut from a period of 6 consecutive 24 hour days, to long ages, to views that even have no relation to creation time. Each of these understandings imposes constraints on how other scriptures and God's natural history is understood.

This writer does not advance any particular view as 'best" but rather takes the view that such a detailed knowledge of God's ways is beyond comprehension by man. Genesis I & 2 was and still is the best God could do to explain It to us given our limited capabilities. Notice that the Information In Genesis I & 2 is woefully Insufficient to answer the questions God put to Job: there is clearly more to the story than given in Genesis. In a very pointed series of questions In Job 38-39 God specifically points out this Inadequacy of man's knowledge about the creation processes. This is probably just as true for us today in our age of science as it would have been for Job and Moses. Most understandings leave the basic facts unchanged: God created the universe by the power of His will In an orderly fashion; God created separate kinds of life; God created man In His image, giving us a distinction of personhood that places us on a higher plane than that accorded to the animals; God has high hopes for His children!

The are two compelling revelations concerning the creation: the bible's Genesis and the creation Itself , Rom 1:20. If both are true then they cannot contradict each other, but both revelations are subject to being misunderstood by man. There is a high probability for such misunderstanding unless both revelations are used to correlate with the other, Just as parallel scriptures must be correlated to acquire full understanding of the plan of salvation. Most scientists accept only half the data, that from the natural arena. Likewise many Christians are unwilling to consider the natural data and only accept the other half -- Genesis. Both are only using half of what God has provided on the topic. Both are likely to err.

The problem with conflicts between science and religion comes only when there is bad science, or bad religion, or both! Historically religion has been the culprit more often than not. All such seeming bible-science conflicts have been due to false religious doctrines (ex: Copernicus, Galilei) and/or incomplete scientific knowledge (ex: spontaneous generation). Elements of both can be expected in current and future issues.

Does science conflict with the bible over the age of the earth? It can't, the bible is silent on such. Can we be? Do scientific methods of today yield consistent data for the age of the earth? Emphatically no, as seen above. What about conflicts over the age of man? Just as the paleontologist's ages are based on assumptions, so are biblical chronologies. Often these assumptions are known to be Incorrect but are used anyway because nothing better is available. Such a situation is ripe for conflicts. Actually anthropologists and bible scholars nearly agree on the age of true man! The estimates differ by at most one order of magnitude -- a mere tick of the geological clock (tens or hundreds of thousands of years).

The dinosaurs and their geological period helped prepare the world for habitation. Certainly they prepared it for use by man today who depends heavily on the coal and oil deposits from the dinosaurs' strata. A great deal is unknown about the lifestyles of these creatures and much speculation has been published as fact. The specific ecological impact of the dinosaurs will probably never be well understood.

CAVE MEN Cro-magnon and Neanderthal were both just ancient "races" of men. They are well documented by many whole skeletons dating back to 250,000-100,000 years ago; not that much older geologically than the dates derived from incomplete bible genealogies. They were cave men only because they lived in caves for easy shelter. They created beautiful art and buried their dead, sometimes with flowers. Neanderthal's brain was bigger than ours! He was no more brutish than any large modern man. These races of men appeared suddenly without any fossil transitional forms to the lower "cave-apes" below. Also modern appearing fossils such as Steinheim, Swascombe, Fontechevade, and Vertessalos man which were contemporary with Neanderthal indicate that Neanderthal was not an ancestor of modern races but more likely an offshoot from current racial stocks.

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA