How Old is the Universe? (Part 2)

Last week I attempted to make the case that as Christians, we ought to be careful of placing too much weight on a particular interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. While personally I believe in an old rather than young universe, my point was not to defend this position. My intent was to demonstrate our need to have an open mind and embrace, rather than be concerned by, scientific progress.

However, there still may be some who are concerned that an interpretation of Genesis that accommodates an old universe warps the plain meaning of the Bible. As I said last week, the scientific evidence for an old universe is fascinating, but I am not qualified to present it. Rather, in this post, I would like to offer some observations about the Genesis account itself that I believe imply an older universe. If the following is not convincing, my hope is that at least it will further demonstrate the possibility of harmonizing belief in an old universe with the Biblical account.

Christians who hold to the old universe view have a variety of ways of reconciling this view with the Genesis account. One is to accept that the 6 days of creation were literal days, but that there was an unknown (perhaps very large) amount of time between each day. Another approach, which is to consider the days to represent ages of an unknown duration, is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for “day”, “yom”, does not necessarily mean a literal 24-hour day. A final view is that the days are figurative in nature, and that the Genesis account presents creation a logical or thematic order, rather than chronologically.

However, those who hold to the literal 6 day creation view often fear that to accept any alternative interpretation would cast doubt on everything that is recorded in the Bible, that it entail placing our trust in human knowledge over God’s knowledge, or even to support a secular and materialistic agenda. To those with such concerns, I would like to point out that many theologians throughout history, including Augustine, have believed that the days in Genesis were not literally 24 hours, even long before science had suggested this. They drew this conclusion based on the text itself, and I would like to present the following observations about the Genesis account that I believe support the old universe view. Again, my goal is not to prove or disprove either one, but merely to show that the old universe view is, at the very least, viable.

First, we must realize that the Bible does not actually say how God created the universe, or how long it took Him to do it. God’s role in the entire process is beyond dispute, but this still leaves us with quite a bit of flexibility to accept new scientific discoveries without feeling threatened or fear that we have to throw out the belief that God is the author of it all.

When Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth”, this statement is not meant to be merely a summary of what follows. Rather, it is an event that precedes verse two. One reason we know this is that the earth exists and is covered with water already in verse two. The actual creation of the universe, then, could have taken any amount of time.

Some may wonder why God would take such a long time, and assume that if no reason can be imagined, this must mean He didn’t do so. But the same question could be asked of those who believe in a six-day creation. Why not five days, or seven? Why not create it all in a single moment? We must be careful to avoid assuming God would not do a particular thing simply because we can’t come up with a reason that satisfies us.

Secondly, there are several reasons to believe the “days” had to be longer than 24 hours. For example, Adam named all the animals during day 6, but this certainly would take much longer than one day. Also, God said that Adam and Eve would surely die in the day that they ate the fruit, but they continued to live much longer than 24 hours. And in chapter 2 verse 2, when it says that God rested (a phrase that surely incorporates some symbolism, unless God has a recliner chair), this can only mean that He ceased creating. In this case, unless He began creating again on day 8, the 7th day must be longer than 24 hours. If so, the other days may be as well.

Genesis 2:4 says “in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”, using “yom” for day as in the previous chapter. Unless we take this to mean He did it all in a single day (contradicting the previous chapter), we must admit that this use of the word does not refer to a 24 hour period, and therefore, the days in the previous chapter may not either.

Thirdly, there are a few points about the Genesis account that seem to suggest that it isn’t necessarily written in chronological order, which leaves open the possibility that the world is much older than might be initially assumed. The events of each day don’t entirely make sense in the order they are written. For example, the sun isn’t created until day 4, but there’s light long before that. And how could there be an evening and morning without the sun? How do plants grow without the sun?

It’s also interesting to note that there is a thematic correspondence between days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6. This seems to indicate at least some level of poetic creativity meant to make a point:

Day 1	Created light, separated light from darkness, established day and night	Day 4	Created lights in the sky (sun, moon, stars)
Day 2	Created the sky to separate the water above from the water below	Day 5	Created fish in the oceans and birds in the air
Day 3	Separated water from dry land, created plants on the land	Day 6	Created animals and humans

On day 4, God created the lights in the sky to indicate the day and night that were established on day 1. On day 5, God created fish and birds to occupy the water and sky that were created on day 2. And on day 6, God created animals and humans to occupy the dry land and cultivate and eat the plants created on day 3. Overall, the account is structured in order to show a gradual development from chaos to order.

Finally, the style of the text itself clearly is poetic. Different parts of the Bible will be understood best if they are read as the type of literature they are. Some portions are poetry, some are parables, some are history, and in most cases the style is sufficiently evident. This difference is apparent when comparing the creation account to the Gospels or books such as 1 and 2 Kings, which clearly are historical. Of course, this does not mean that the Genesis account is not historical. It simply means that we should expect generalizations (rather than scientifically precise language) as well as certain themes and symbolically vivid language in order to communicate particular ideas. This was a common way to record history at the time Genesis was written.  

If anyone still is uncomfortable with labeling anything in the Genesis account as “symbolism”, consider that it says God “walked” through the garden. Obviously God is not a bipedal creature, and we all would agree He is omnipresent as well. So it cannot be denied that there are at least some figurative elements in the account.

All of these points don’t necessarily make a solid case for the old earth model (although I believe science does), but they do reveal several difficulties with a purely literal interpretation, further allowing for an older age for the universe. Again, my goal is not to prove that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but only to argue that this belief is consistent with the Genesis account and does not in any way deny the foundational beliefs of Christianity.