ChristCommunityOnline.org

Scientists generally hold that the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, that life began between 4-3 billion years ago, and that man, as we know him (homo sapiens), arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Man spread to inhabit the near east, Europe and central Asia about 100,000 years ago; S.E. Asia, Australia and Polynesia between 40,000 and 20000 years ago; and the America's 14,000 to 20,000 years ago. Their dates are established by a number of methods, including: various radio-isotope dating methods, mitochondrial DNA studies, geological strata, others. None of these methods are without problems, but they are generally considered to be the best tools available by scientists who work in these fields (geology, paleontology, anthropology, etc). A recent best seller written from this perspective,Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond, summarizes some of this information.

On the other end of the spectrum, Christians who believe in the authority and literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes hold to a "young earth" view. By adding up the numbers of years given in the genealogies of Genesis, they conclude that the earth was created in 4004 BC. This is often called "Usher's chronology,” after the Anglican bishop who first publicized it widely. Under this chronology the biblical flood would have taken place in about 2500 BC. This view has the advantage of taking Scripture at face value. It has the disadvantage of appearing to contradict widely agreed upon findings of archeologists and anthropologists. For example, there are more than 20 "Neolithic" sites in Palestine alone (many more throughout world), in which remains of human activity have been dated (using carbon 14, stratiography, pottery sequences, dendrochronoly - tree ring dating) to 8000-10000 years ago. Moreover, in none of these sites in Palestine is there evidence of a "flood layer."

I think that there is room for a good bit of error on both sides of this argument. On the one hand, scientists’ assumptions concerning the immense age of the earth, evolutionary development, etc. certainly bias their interpretation of chronological tests and even in the choice of which tests they consider valid.

On the other hand, I wonder if the principles of "literal interpretation" that we evangelicals fervently hold and that, I believe, serve us so well in treating most of Scripture, are strictly applicable for the first several chapters of Genesis. For instance - there are those who insist that the first chapter of Genesis is "history." However, "history," as describing a kind of literature, is usually understood to be a record of events that were witnessed by humans and thus "recorded" in some way. However, for most of the events described in Genesis 1 there was no human witness. If this chapter is history, it is a unique kind of history (maybe “revealed history”?) and is perhaps not subject to the usual rules for interpreting and understanding historical literature.

Of course we must assert that God created the universe and man, that in Adam and Eve mankind fell through sin and came to experience spiritual and physical death, that God judged sinful mankind with a flood, while preserving Noah, his family and animal life in the ark. But beyond these points and others which are specifically mentioned in the New Testament, I think that we can and should refrain from claiming any final or authoritative interpretation of these early chapters of Genesis.