There is a reason the "young" earth position (a phrase I find circular, as it assumes 6,000 years is, in any way, young) has been the default position for 3,400 years. It's because from the moment Moses, guided by God, put pen to paper, the Creationist view has been inescapable. By contrast, Old Earth views are new, corresponding with Lyell's desire to "free science from Moses", and Darwin's clear hatred of God.
Already, I can predict the Old Earther's response. It is often claimed that actually, the "young" earth view is the new one, and Genesis was always seen as being open for interpretation. Most commonly cited is Augustine. But is this wise? I will now explain why Augustine is so commonly cited in these debates, and why that is fallacious. Then I would like to present evidence that the "young" earth view has been the dominant interpretation for a significant amount of time, and rightfully so.
First, why did Augustine misinterpret Genesis? An important thing to note about Augustine is his acceptance of non-canonical books as canon. One of those books, which can still be found in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles today (as well as the original King James version) was Sirach, an Apocryphal book believed by the Jews to be significant, maybe even a lesser inspired work. Augustine also possessed a faulty translation of this book. So, when he read in Sirach 18:1 as "He who lives eternally has made OMNIA SIMUL", he understood it as God made all things at the same time. In reality, it means either "all things together" or "the whole universe".
Augustine's view, therefore, was based on reasonably sound logic, but it was still a false conclusion. Augustine had several false assumptions. He falsely assumed Sirach is scripture, and that he had a correct translation. He then correctly assumed that scripture interprets scripture. Therefore, in Augustine's mind, if Sirach interprets Genesis, then the 6 days must not be literal because God made all things at the same time. Therefore, not only was Augustine basing his conclusions on a faulty translation of a non-Biblical source (much like old earthers do today), he still can't be used to defend an old earth view, because he went in the opposite direction.
One thing that is especially amusing is that even with his faulty view of the days in Genesis, Augustine was still a "young" earth Creationist. Old earth views are actually quite old themselves, and did exist in his day. Augustine, however, called them "mendacious documents", and said "...reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed". If old earthers want support for their view, Augustine is clearly not their guy.
But Augustine isn't the only early theologian who took a "young" earth view of Genesis. As a matter of fact, almost all of them interpreted Genesis literally from 1400 B.C. to 1700 A.D.. In age order, here are a few (all emphasis mine):
- 721 B.C., Tobit 8:6: You made Adam, and you made Eve to be his helper and support; and from these two the human race has come."
- circa 60-70 A.D., Acts 17:26: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation
- Flavius Josephus (37 - 100): "Accordingly Moses says that in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made."
- Origen (185 - 254): "After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that..."
- Martin Luther (1483 - 1546): "But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are."
- John Calvin (1509 - 1564): "...little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe."
- 1646 (Westminster confession of faith 4:1): "It pleased God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the same of six days; and all very good."
- Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727): "For an educated man in the seventeenth century or even eighteenth century, any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation."
- 1771, Encyclopedia Britanica (under the heading of "deluge"): "the most memorable was that called the universal deluge, or Noah's flood, which overflowed and destroyed the whole earth..."
As you can see, history is replete with examples of both Jews and Christians affirming that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days, roughly 6,000 years ago, and that He sent a literal, global flood to destroy the world. These same people were not unaware of old earth views, which have persisted in many cultures worldwide, and many of these quotes were written as direct oppositions to those old earth beliefs. The Luther quote is especially relevant, as he was responding to those who took Augustine's view, that the six days were symbolic of one. So vehement was Luther in his belief that Genesis means what it says that he dared claim his view was what the Holy Spirit teaches (which, of course, it is).
But far more authoritative than any of the non-Scriptural quotes mentioned above are the scriptures themselves (I also mentioned Acts 17:26 because it compares well with Tobit 8:6). In the header image, I have noted one very important reference: 2 Peter 3:5-7. It reads, in the KJV:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
So, let us unpack this passage. First, note the harsh wording about those who take the position it describes. To be called willingly ignorant is not high praise. It's a step down from calling you an outright liar. And yet, this is the language used by Peter to describe old earthers. Not necessarily all of them, but it's not a position Peter thought was intellectually valid. You see, therefore, that the meme I have included of Squidward removing his brain and dropping it in the trash can, while admittedly immature, is not entirely unwarranted. There are really only two ways to draw an old earth conclusion: To willingly ignore the scriptures, or to not be acquainted enough with them to be able to resist such folly when it is preached by such wilfully ignorant preachers.
But perhaps you think I'm wrong. Perhaps Peter isn't describing old earth beliefs. What are the people he is describing willingly ignorant of? "by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" These people, then, are ignorant of the fact that God created by His word, specifically that the world was created by water, and that the waters destroyed the world of that time. I see no other realistic interpretation than that this speaks of creation and the flood.
Old earthers tend to side with the atheists on two things: The world was not formed out of water, but out of magma, and that a global flood did not happen. The first can be wiped out very easily. Where is there any mention of magma in the entire Bible with regard to creation? There isn't. 2 Peter 3:5 and Genesis 1:2 both describe the initial creation as being watery.
But what of a local flood? Isn't this possible? After all, the Bible often uses the term "the world" to refer to a local area, so why couldn't "the world that then was" be Mesopotamia? While it's true that sometimes the word "world" refers to a local area, this isn't a hard and fast rule. When we say God created the world, we don't mean God only created Israel. When we say God so loved the world (John 3:16), do we not say that also applies to those who were in Australia at that time? Indeed, in verse 7, Peter compares the flood to the final judgement, which no Christian in their right mind will claim only refers to a specific area beyond which one might be able to flee to escape God's wrath.
As a whole, the Bible is no more friendly to old earth creationists than, for example, William Lane Craig is to "young" earth creationists. The difference is, when Craig claims it's "embarrassing" that Christians still take Genesis literally, he is spitting in the face of God and trampling over His word in little different a way than Charles Lyell did when he sought to "free science from Moses". When Peter calls William Lane Craig "willingly ignorant", by contrast, he does so under inspiration of God, not to be cruel, but to rebuke and correct, as the scriptures were designed to do (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And this is the attitude we, as Christians, must have for each other.
If you're an old earth Creationist and have read this far, I'd like to encourage you to throw off the shackles of secularism and trust fully in the word of God. As Luther said, the Holy Spirit is considerably more learned than any man. His word is perfect and pure, unlike the fallible word of sinful human beings, many of whom accept old earth views purely out of spite for God. Contrary to the baseless claims of toothless heretics, it is entirely possible to trust the word of God, as it is written, without throwing your brain out the door. It is not, however, possible to intellectually reconcile old earth philosophies with the creation account which was provided through Moses more than 3 millennia ago.