Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
103 Science, the Bible,
and Creation



Old Earth Creationism (Part 1):
8 Major Hermeneutic Proofs


Old Earth Creationism (Part 1): 8 Major Hermeneutic Proofs
Old Earth Creationism (Part 2): 5 Additional Evidences
Old Earth Creationism (Part 3): Answering Old Earth Objections


In recent decades a growing debate has erupted within Christian circles over some conflicting claims that the Bible and the naturalist scientific timetable make about universe. The purpose of this article is to explore some of the common issues involved in this debate. It should also be noted that this debate is occurring “within Christian circles.” It is an “in-house” debate over the timetable or age of the earth among those who affirm the Judeo-Christian tradition and its scripture. Both the “old earth” view and the “young earth” view affirm Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Christian scripture, they just interpret the texts differently with regard to this issue. Consequently, the purpose of this series of articles will be to establish which interpretation of the text is correct.

As in all discussions, we must first correctly define our terms. In reality, science and the Bible fall into two different categories. And here we need to be clear about our meaning. When we state that the Bible and science are “fall into two different categories,” we explicitly do not mean that the Bible and science are two alternate approaches to truth. That perception places the Bible and science within the same category, the category of “approaches to truth.” Instead, what we are saying is that the Bible and science are items that are not even in the same category.

Categorically speaking, like any historical records, the historical accounts recorded in the Bible are a truth source, a set of data or information. Similarly, the fossil record or the geologic features of the earth, for example, are also a truth source, a set of data or information. On the other hand, the term "science" primarily refers to a method of truth discovery or analysis. Consequently, the Judeo-Christian scriptures along with the fossil record and geologic features fall into an entirely different category than the concept “science.” Items like the Judeo-Christian scripture, the fossil record, and geologic features are all data sets. Science is a method of discovering and analyzing data.

Furthermore, “science” is a term that broadly applies. When we hear the word "science" we think of natural sciences such as biology or chemistry or physics, but this is an inaccurate perception of the term because it is too narrow. Actually the term is much more inclusive than just natural sciences and includes anything from psychology to theology including hermeneutics. We'll make that last point again because it deserves emphasis. Hermeneutics, which is the science of Biblical interpretation, is just as much a "science" as the natural sciences of biology or physics. And like the natural sciences, hermeneutics has its own set of rules of analysis, including grammar, vocabulary, context, historic context, etc. The difference between hermeneutic science and the natural sciences is the data set to which they are applied. Hermeneutics is the science applied to interpreting the Bible. Natural sciences are the sciences applied to interpreting data found in nature. (For more information on the rules of Bible interpretation, please see our outline entitled, “Hermeneutic Systems and the Grammatical Historical Method” under the “Foundations of Our Theology and Hermeneutics” Section of our In-Depth Studies page.)

Similarly, the term "science" is also used to refer to the current level of understanding produced by the scientific method. Again, when we hear the word “science” in this sense, we still generally think of the current level of understanding in such areas as biology, chemistry, and physics. But again, this is too narrow of a definition. Technically, "science" in this sense refers to the current level of understanding generated in any field through scientific means, including hermeneutics. Therefore, we can refer to knowledge acquired through hermeneutic science as "scientific knowledge" in the same way that we do with knowledge acquired through the natural sciences. Consequently, both current hermeneutic knowledge and the current knowledge obtained from the natural sciences are components of the larger category known as modern scientific knowledge.

In light of these clarifications, it is simply incorrect to view this debate over creation as a debate between "science and the Bible" or as a debate between “scientific knowledge and the Bible.” In reality, science is used by both sides and both sides have a body of knowledge that has been produced by the application of scientific methodology.

In addition, these clarifications are important for another reason. Since the “old earth” vs. “young earth” creationism debate is over how to interpret scripture, only hermeneutic science can be applied. Instead however, in the “old earth” vs. “young earth” debate over the meaning of scripture, “old earth” creationists at times make the argument that the text of scripture should be interpreted not simply by means of the science of textual interpretation (hermeneutics). Specifically, old earth creationists often argue that the text of scripture must be interpreted in light of the naturalist scientific timetable, which in turn was derived from the naturalistic, evolutionary influence on modern cosmology and geology. Old earth creationists believe that the naturalistic conclusions in these areas are so unassailable that scripture’s meaning is necessarily informed by these particular conclusions even when the resulting interpretation of scripture completely contradicts the scientific rules for textual interpretation. In other words, for old earth creationists things like vocabulary, grammar, context, and historic context are all secondary when it comes to what the meaning of a text is. The meaning of the text is ultimately determined by the conclusions of naturalistic science, particularly its billions-of-years timetable.

However, if the rules for interpreting a text dictate a certain meaning and that meaning contradicts other established evidence, then the correct procedure is to conclude that the text is simply wrong. It is incorrect procedure to take the text and “reinterpret” it against the rules of textual interpretation just to get it to fit with the established evidence. That procedure is plain and simple data tampering. By definition, this is bad hermeneutic science and simply bad science in general because it forces these interpreters to arrange the words of scripture until they have created their desired interpretation. Therefore, scientifically speaking, it is inappropriate to adjust hermeneutic evidence to support the naturalist scientific timetable. If hermeneutic science dictates a meaning for the text of scripture which is incompatible with the naturalist scientific timetable, then at least one of the two is incorrect. That is the only scientific conclusion and that it’s the only conclusion that can be reached from a scientific approach.

Here we must take care that our meaning is clear. Notice that our statement discussed the possibility of a contradiction between naturalistic (or evolutionary) theory and the Bible, not a possible contradiction between science and the Bible and not the possibility of a contradiction between physical reality and the Bible. Naturalistic theory is not synonymous with the field of science itself. Nor is naturalistic theory synonymous with the actual, physical evidence. Naturalism is merely the philosophical preference to restrict all explanations to evolution by means of slow, gradual, natural, physical processes. Naturalistic theory is simply one scientific theory and it is simply one interpretation of the evidence. Consequently, we are not suggesting the possibility that the Bible might be right and physical reality wrong. If physical reality, observable reality really did contradict what the Bible says, then Christians would have to admit that the Bible is not an accurate portrayal of reality. It would be an error to reject physical reality to instead embrace a false view of reality, no matter what the source of that false view of reality is. On the other hand, we are addressing a potential conflict between the Bible and naturalistic theory, in which case either one could theoretically be incorrect. And we will have to weigh the evidence and arguments to determine which.

However, this series is not about whether the Bible’s creation account or the overarching naturalistic theory is correct. That is the subject of the closely-related series on evolution. Before we can even ask whether the Bible’s creation account or naturalistic theory is correct, we first have to determine if the 2 are in conflict or are compatible. In short, we first need to determine what the Bible’s creation account actually is. And that is the focus of this series, to determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct, an “old earth” interpretation of the Genesis creation account or a “young earth” interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

Our investigation of this question will be divided into 2 main sections. First, we will discuss the positive proof for the “young earth” interpretation of the Genesis creation account. And second, we will address some of the common objections to the “young earth” interpretation.


The Genesis Creation Account: Hermeneutic Proofs for a Young Earth

There are 8 simple, straightforward hermeneutic proofs that establish unequivocally that Genesis is describing a “young earth” and a universe that was created only 6 thousand years ago (with 10 thousand years as an absolute upper limit.) Because this series deals with hermeneutics, the science of text interpretation, we recommend reading our outline entitled, “Hermeneutic Systems and the Grammatical Historical Method” under the “Foundations of Our Theology and Hermeneutics” Section of our In-Depth Studies page. However, even without an extensive background in hermeneutics, the proofs that Genesis dates creation at 6 thousand years ago are very easy to comprehend.

It should be noted that the 8 proofs listed below are not unique arguments developed by the authors of this website. These arguments are widely known among young earth creationists. They can be found, for example, outlined by creationist Mike Riddle, in his audio-visual presentation titled, “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter What We Believe?” available from Northwestern Creation Network at nwcreation.net. Consequently, these 8 proofs are not being presented here because they are novel arguments. Instead, they are being presented on this website for 2 reasons. First, the question of whether or not the Bible teaches a “young earth” or an “old earth” is an essential issue in Judeo-Christian theology as well as an essential aspect of the creationism-evolution debate. Since this question must be covered, the proofs for the conclusion must be presented. Second, rather than presenting some new proofs, we are presenting these 8 particular proofs because they are so clear and so insurmountable that they settle the issue.

In order to properly understand these 8 proofs, a brief comment should be made regarding a particularly focal issue in the “old earth creationism” vs. “young earth creationism” debate. That focal issue is the Hebrew word for “day” as it appears in Genesis 1. Does that word “day” refer to a literal 24-hour day? Or does the word translated as “day” really refer to a much longer period of time? In particular, the question is whether or not the word “day” in Genesis 1 refers to long ages of millions or billions of years.

A closely-related question concerns whether or not the “days” of Genesis 1 are consecutive. In other words, even if the “days” are literal 24-hour periods, are these days back to back one right after the other with no intervening time? Or do gaps separate them, perhaps even gaps of millions (or in some cases billions) of years?

The suggestion that the “days” of Genesis 1 are long ages of years or that there is a long gap somewhere within Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. These two views are commonly known as the “day-age” and the “gap” theories. (Related, but not necessarily synonymous with “day-age” and “gap” theories, is theistic evolution which accepts general evolutionary processes and timetables but sees God as the Creator directing them.) Both “day-age” and “gap” theories are attempts to reconcile Judeo-Christianity and the text of Genesis 1 with the naturalist scientific timescale. Specifically, both the “day-age” and the “gap” theory attempt to find within the text of Genesis 1 enough time for the naturalist scientific timetable. And six, consecutive, literal 24-hour days simply rule out enough time for the naturalist scientific timetable to occur (thereby also ruling out biological evolution as well) as far as the Judeo-Christian worldview is concerned. The reasons for this will be established by the 8 proofs for a “young earth” described below. Furthermore, these 8 proofs will also answer both sets of questions above. Consequently, these 8 proofs are proofs that the text of Genesis necessarily describes six, literal 24-hour days, that those days are consecutive rather than being separated by gaps, and that the creation week occurred only 6 thousand years ago. Effectively, these are 8 proofs that the only way to interpret Genesis is young earth creationism and that Genesis is utterly incompatible with the naturalist scientific timetable.

These 8 proofs can be arranged into 3 categories: proofs for a literal day, proofs that the days are consecutive, and proofs that these days occurred only 6 thousand years ago. We will begin with the proofs that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 are literal, 24-hour days.

As we begin our analysis of the text of Genesis, we notice first of all that the word “day” is used repeatedly throughout the opening chapter. The Hebrew word for “day” is “yowm,” which is Strong’s Concordance Number 03117. Below is the definition for “yowm.”

03117 yowm
from an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT-852; n m
AV-day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44; 2287
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day’s journey
1c) days, lifetime (pl.)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow

We should note concerning the use of “yowm” to refer to a day that “yowm” refers to a day in the same way that we conceive of the term “day” in English. In English, we conceive of a day as referring to both the hours of light in a 24-hour period as well as the whole 24-hour period itself. In English, each “day” is comprised of several hours of light and several hours of dark. And the hours of light are also referred to as the “day.” The same is true in the Hebrew concerning the word “yowm.” It refers to both the whole day as well as the hours of light in that day.

As we can see from the first line of the definition, “yowm” can refer to a day, a year, or even a period of time. Of course, no one interprets “yowm” in Genesis 1 as referring to a single year. No one is arguing for the idea that God created the earth in six years. Instead, the argument is over whether or not “yowm” in Genesis 1 refers to “days” or long “periods of time.”

From the definition above we also notice that “yowm” occurs 2287 times in the Old Testament and that 2008 of those times it is translated as “day.” In other words, 87.8 percent of the time it is used, “yowm” refers to “day.” But, even though statistics indicate that we ought to interpret “yowm” in Gensis 1 as “day,” because of the definition, there is still the possibility that a “year” or a “period of time” is intended.

So, how do we know whether or not “yowm” in Genesis 1 is intended to refer to a day or a period of time? Furthermore, how do we know whether or not those days were consecutive or separated by gaps? And how do we know how long ago those days were? Here we arrive at the 8 reasons for a “young earth” creation. (Additional analysis in support of some of these proofs can be found in the article entitled, “The Creation Week,” which is also located in this section.)

1) In the Old Testament there are 359 times that “yowm” appears with a number (such as “first day,” “fifth day,” or “forty days”). And all 359 times that “yowm” appears with a number, it always means a literal, 24-hour day. “Yowm” is never used with a number to denote a “year” or a “period of time.” Consequently, this pattern would also indicate that the use of “yowm” with numbers in Genesis 1 and 2 would indicate that in Genesis 1 and 2, “yowm” also indicates a literal, 24-day.

2) The terms “evening” and “morning” are used to describe the days in Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening (06153) and the morning (01242) were the first day.

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening (06153) and the morning (01242) were the second day.

Genesis 1:13 And the evening (06153) and the morning (01242) were the third day.

Genesis 1:19 And the evening (06153) and the morning (01242) were the fourth day.

Genesis 1:23 And the evening (06153) and the morning (01242) were the fifth day.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening (06153) and the morning (01242) were the sixth day.

The Hebrew word for “evening” is “ereb,” Strong’s No. 06153, which simply means “evening, night, or sunset” as indicated plainly in the first definition below. The Hebrew word for “morning” is “boqer” (Strong’s No. 01242), which simply means, “morning” or “the end of night” or “the coming of daylight as indicated in the second definition below. Consequently, the fact that the each “yowm” is defined by a single period of evening and daylight demonstrates plainly that these are literal, 24-days.

06153 ‘ereb
from 06150; TWOT-1689a; n m
AV-even 72, evening 47, night 4, mingled 2, people 2, eventide 2, eveningtide + 06256 2, Arabia 1, days 1, even + 0996 1, evening + 03117 1, evening + 06256 1, eventide + 06256 1; 137
1) evening, night, sunset
1a) evening, sunset
1b) night

01242 boqer
from 01239; TWOT-274c; n m
AV-morning 191, morrow 7, day 3, days + 06153 1, early 3; 205
1) morning, break of day
1a) morning
1a1) of end of night
1a2) of coming of daylight
1a3) of coming of sunrise
1a4) of beginning of day
1a5) of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
1b) morrow, next day, next morning

3) Genesis 1:14 actually uses “yowm” both to refer to a day in contrast to “seasons” and “years” and to refer to day in contrast to night. This defines “yowm” in the context of the text of Genesis 1 and 2. Specifically, this demonstrates that throughout Genesis 1 and 2 “yowm” has the normal meaning of “day,” both the 24-hour period and the hours of light during that period.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day (03117) from the night (03915); and let them be for signs, and for seasons (04150), and for days (03117), and years (08141).

4) Referring back to the creation week in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:9-11 and 31:17 use “yowm” not only to refer to God’s creative work, but the days of the Jewish work week. Both the days in which God created and the days in which the Jews were work are described as “yowm” without any distinction or qualification being used. Since we know that the Jewish week was a period of seven, literal 24-hour days, we know that God’s creation week was as well due to the fact that “yowm” is applied equally to both in these passages. The passages further identify God’s rest as a literal day by asserting that the seventh day of the Jewish week was actually made a holy day of rest when God himself rested on that very day during creation week. The text simply does not allow any room for God’s own rest to be on anything other than the seventh day of the Jewish work week.

Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

5) If God had intended to mean “long periods of time” instead of literal days, there were other Hebrew words that were available instead of “yowm.” The prominent example is the Hebrew word “owlam” (Strong’s No. 05769). The primary meaning of “owlom” is indeed “long duration” or “long time” particularly of long durations in the past. This is indicated plainly in the definition below. The fact that God did not use the Hebrew word for “long duration” but instead used the Hebrew word “yowm,” which nearly 90 percent of the time refers to a literal day, demonstrates plainly that Genesis 1 and 2 are referring to actual days, not long durations of time.

05769 ‘owlam or ‘olam
from 05956; TWOT-1631a; n m
AV-ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15, never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2, more 2, never + 0408 2, misc 6; 439
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
1b) (of future)
1b1) for ever, always
1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

6) As creationist Mike Riddle explains in the quote below, there are 2 ways of structuring sentences in the Hebrew language. One structure denotes normal, narrative writing, such as historic records. The other structure denotes poetic writing style, such as when symbolic imagery is used. Genesis 1 does not use the poetic structure but the narrative structure, which demonstrates that its reference to days is intended literally as a normal historic account, not figuratively or poetically.

“Every language we know in the world is made up of sentences. And a lot of these languages have components that make up their sentences. For example, in the English language, we have things like nouns, verbs, subjects, objects, prepositions, adverbs, and things like that. In some of these languages, depending on the order you put these components, that sentence can have a different meaning, just by the rearrangement of those components. And the Hebrew language is one of those languages. For example, if you write a sentence in the Hebrew language and you structure that sentence so that the subject is first, then the verb, then the object – subject, verb, object – that is poetic style writing in the Hebrew language, such as we see in most of the Psalms. But if you write a Hebrew sentence and structure it so that the verb is first, then the subject, then the object – verb, subject, object – that is narrative style writing in the Hebrew language, indicating history, fact. Now, how is Genesis translated from the Hebrew? When you translate it from the Hebrew, it reads this order: “In the beginning, created God the heavens.” “Created” is the verb. “God” is the subject. “Heavens” is the object. That is verb, subject, object. That is narrative style writing in Hebrew, indicating history, fact. Anyone making the claim that Genesis is an allegory – good for spiritual teaching – or making the claim that its poetic style of writing – it can have a lot of meanings – is guilty of adding their personal opinions into God’s Word because the context of the language supports literal days and the grammatical structure of the Hebrew sentence also supports literal history, days. Nothing in there indicates long ages. The Bible does not teach that.” – “Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter What We Believe?” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net, Windows Media, 34 minutes, 20 seconds

As we indicated earlier, these 8 proofs can be arranged into 3 categories: proofs for a literal day, proofs that the days are consecutive, and proofs that these days occurred only 6 thousand years ago. Our next proof not only demonstrates that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 are literal, 24-hour days, but it also demonstrates these days must be consecutive, without any gaps in between them.

7) Genesis 1 states that the plants were created by God on Day 1 while the sun was created on Day 4.

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Old earth creationists argue that the arrival of the sun on Day 4 of Genesis 1 does not refer to the creation of the sun but merely to the sun becoming visible and penetrating to the surface of the earth through the dense cloud cover, which formerly blocked it out. However, even with this interpretation, the sun and sunlight do not penetrate the cloud cover and reach the earth until Day 4 while plants are present on Day 3. Thus, the days of Genesis 1 cannot be “long ages” or separated by gaps, because in both cases, the plants would be without sunlight for thousands to millions of years. The only way for plants to survive is if the days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days, in which case the plants would only have been without sunlight for 1 day. Thus, “yowm” must refer to literal, 24-hour days and those days must have been consecutive, one right after the other, not separated by long durations of time. 

With these 7 hermeneutic proofs that the days of Genesis must be literal, 24-hour days rather than long periods of time, we now arrive at the eighth proof, which addresses the question of how long ago these days occurred.

8) The duration of time that passed between the creation of Adam on day 6 of Genesis 1 and the present time is identified and limited explicitly by the genealogies provided in the Bible. Genesis 5, Genesis 11, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3 all provide the genealogies for this time period, starting with Adam. Old earth creationists object that these genealogies may be missing names, which in turn denote gaps of additional time. For example, a grandfather and a grandson might be listed without mention of the intervening father. However, even omitted generations would not allow for any additional time. This is demonstrated by the unequivocal fact that the durations of time in the genealogies are counted in terms of the age of one individual when another individual is born.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:

Genesis 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

Genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Genesis 5:12  And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Genesis 5:14  And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

Genesis 5:16  And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

Genesis 5:18  And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

Genesis 5:20  And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

Genesis 5:22  And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

Genesis 5:24  And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

Genesis 5:26  And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Consequently, even if a father were to be omitted, the number of years is fixed by the age of the grandfather when the grandson is born. Thus, in terms of the actual number of years, the omitted generation is irrelevant. Notice that the genealogy gives the number of years down to Abraham, a figure whose dates are a part of known history.

Abrahamflourished early 2nd millennium BC, Hebrew Avraham , originally called Abram or, in Hebrew, Avram first of the Hebrew patriarchs and a figure revered by the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Abraham – or Abram, biblical patriarch, according to the Book of Genesis (see 11:27-25:10), progenitor of the Hebrews, who probably lived in the period between 2000 and 1500BC.” – "Abraham," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Abraham – Abraham was the founder of Judaism and the ancestor of both the Arabs and the Jews. The Arabs trace their ancestry to Abraham's oldest son, Ishmael. The Jews consider Abraham their ancestor through another son, Isaac. Abraham, Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob are called the patriarchs (founding fathers) of the Jews. Many scholars believe that Abraham lived between about 1800 and 1500 B.C.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Eric M. Meyers, Ph.D., Professor of Religion, Duke University.

As we can see, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, and Worldbook all agree that Abraham lived somewhere around 1,500 BC. Because Abraham’s lifetime is dated at a maximum of 4,000 years ago and the number of years between Abraham and Adam is denoted by fixed periods in the genealogies of scripture, there simply cannot be more than about 6,000 since the creation days of Genesis 1. Consequently, the earth is young and there is no time for the naturalist scientific timetable (or consequently, for biological evolution).