Earth formed in this manner about 4.54 billion years ago (with an uncertainty of 1%) and was largely completed within 10–20 million years. It was most favorable for human migration during the first two of the three epochs. The most likely biblical date for the creation of Adam and Eve, therefore, would lie between 55,000 and 120,000 years ago. However, the date could be stretched as far back as 230,000 years ago based on differing geological and DNA opinions.
Ussher’s date of creation of October 23, 4004 B.C. appears to rely upon two questionable theological assumptions. One assumption concerns conformity with an expected 6000 years of history. Because we are now well into the seventh millennium after Ussher’s date of creation, this assumption appears to be void. The other assumption concerns the coincidence of the creation with Rosh Hashanah, which would require that the moon was at a particular phase on that date. However, there is question as to whether the moon was at the appropriate phase on that date. Furthermore, it would not be possible to ascertain the date from the moon’s phase on the calendar that Ussher proposed that the ancient Hebrews used.
How did the very persuasive Ussher get to his conclusion. He generally rejected any suggestion of geology, or extant animals of ancient times, and relied solely on the Bible, and particularly on the genealogies in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11, with some references to other biblical passages. Later in his studies, when controversy arose, Ussher began to use well documented secular historical accounts for verification. Most Bible purists ignored that evidence as lacking scriptural authenticity, but Ussher linked the Bible to known history to countervail such arguments. He linked the deportation of Judah in 584 BC to simplify calculations.
Archbishop James Ussher arrived at a very precise date and time for the creation of the earth using scripture and references in non-Christian sources. Using those sources, Ussher’s key to precise dating came from pinning down the precise dates of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. He finally found the answer in a list of Babylonian kings produced by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy in the second century.
With that as a key date, Ussher proceeded to the determination of the date of Creation along with the Bible’s genealogical records combined with the Genesis 1 account of Creation. He arrived at the firm date of the beginning of Earth and the universe of about 6000 years, with a bit of uncertainty on the completeness of the genealogical records, allowing for a few thousand years more. From Adam to Jesus, there are approximately 4,000 years. This timeline includes key figures such as Abraham, Moses, and David, leading up to the birth of Jesus Christ. The genealogies in the Bible trace this lineage from the first man, Adam, to Jesus. Moses led Israel out of Egypt in 1513 B.C. when he was 80 years old; so, he had to have been born in 1593 B.C. He lived to be 120 years old dying in 1473 B.C. Jesus was born 1591 years after the birth of Moses and 1471 years after Moses died.
Armed with that compelling evidence, Archbishop Ussher arrived at the date and time of Creation was nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. in the proleptic Julian calendar. Published in 1650, the full title of Ussher’s work in Latin is Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto [Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabees]. Part of the reason for the enthusiastic and continuing acceptance of Ussher’s work was that it was generally agreed that he had once and for all answered the long-running theological debate on the age of the Earth. It had been a major concern of scores of Christian scholars for centuries.
His scholarly dating coincided nicely with the opinions of many other religious scholars of the past and of his own time which contributed to its lasting palatibility. Published in 1650, the full title of Ussher’s work in Latin is Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabees). Ussher’s work was his contribution to the long-running theological debate on the age of the Earth. This was a major concern of many Christian scholars over the centuries.
Ussher’s scholarly computations corresponded comfortably to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” literally. [2 Peter 3:8]. In the Book of Hosea, it is written that Israel would be scattered into all the world for two days—given the thousand days for God being equal to one day for man—the idea, with some stretching, has been used to argue for the return of Christ in 2000 A.D. The actual Babylonian captivity was 70 years in real world terms.
There is at least a potential flaw of logic in the idea that Old Testament figures lived to extremely old ages. The numbers could be interpreted as symbolic or rhetorical rather than literal, considering the cultural context of the time where such numbers might have been used to signify importance or longevity without necessarily reflecting precise historical ages; this is especially relevant when considering the lack of reliable record-keeping methods during that period. There is no such admission—which if true—would be a significant deviation from the rules of logic.
The ancient world often used numbers symbolically, and the extremely long lifespans in Genesis could be a way of emphasizing the significance of these figures in the narrative rather than recording literal ages. When making comparisons between contemporary societies to those described in the Bible, bare this out: Different versions of the Sumerian King List are found in several ancient documents, and these use outlandishly large figures for the number of years some kings supposedly reigned in various Mesopotamian city-states, e.g., in Eridug, Alulim ruled for 28,800 years. There are 30 numbers used for ages in Genesis 5. A characteristic of those 30 numbers is that all of them end with the digits 0, 2, 5, 7, or 9, somewhat suggestive that there was not just a random distribution of numbers. That could make us suspicious that Genesis 5 is merely giving a historical report.
However, we do not, in fact, find any other reason in the Bible that the age numbers had any numerological significance. Taking the Bible alone–especially viewing it as infallible–we are inclined to see them as consistent with the sorts of numbers we would expect in a report of real ages, hence the flaw in logic.
To be fair, creationists and biblical archconservatives see a different logical fallacy: The minimalist fallacy does not accept the Bible as wholly true; it assumes that whatever approach the reader wants to take–which is typically a modern scientific approach–is correct and true. Therefore, the Bible must conform to that approach and whatever that worldview claims as true, regardless of what the Bible says. The present author is not sure what to make of that “fallacy”.
There is even argument that the Bible leaves room for the consideration of an “Old Earth”, depending on a more recent translation. The Gap Theory says that the first few verses of Genesis should be translated as the following:
- In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And the earth [became] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This is due to different translations for the Hebrew word “hayah”. The Gap Theory suggests that there was an arbitrary amount of time between when God created the earth and when the rest of the creation story occurred, i.e. perhaps a very long period.
Conservative theologian B. B. Warfield reached the same conclusion in On The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race, commenting that “it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables.”
Acceptance of Ussher’s conclusions resulted in the widely held Christian tradition that Jesus would return in A.D. 2000, a little more than six thousand years after 4004 B.C. when the Earth was created. Televangelist, Ed Dobson–surveying fifty remarkable events that point to the imminent return of Christ—concluded that 2000 was a likely year. Around the world, people gathered in a host of places, including on their rooftops to be able to witness the Event. It did not happen, nor was this the first such event, and has not been the last.
Ussher’s chronology was included in the margins of many King James Bibles and was the basis for many Bible translations. In Europe, Ussher’s determinations were so solidly accepted it was as if they were carved in stone by the finger of God. American fundamentalists in the 1920s accepted Ussher’s chronology as accurate. The Gideon Society included Ussher’s chronology in the Bibles placed in hotel rooms until the 1970s.
Having given Ussher his due and pointing out possible flaws in the theological thinking which created the mysterious concepts of the longevity of several individuals featured in the Old Testament, it is time to make a very brief summary of secular/scientific human and Earth history.
The primary evidence supporting the theory of an old Earth comes from radiometric dating of rocks and minerals, which uses the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes to estimate the age of geological formations, indicating Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old; other supporting evidence includes the layered sedimentary rock record, ice core data showing long-term climate changes, and the fossil record demonstrating evolution over vast periods of time.
Radiometric Dating is considered the most reliable method for determining the age of rocks. It analyzes the decay of radioactive isotopes like Carbon 12, uranium, and potassium, into stable lead and argon, respectively. The vast thickness of sedimentary rock layers–often containing fossils that show a progression of life forms–indicates a long period of deposition and geological change. Ice cores drilled from polar regions provide a record of past climate conditions, including volcanic ash layers that can be dated precisely, showing thousands of years of climate fluctuations. Recently ice cores have yielded dates over two million years of age. The fossil record reveals a sequence of life forms, with simpler organisms appearing before more complex ones, demonstrating evolution over millions of years. The movement of tectonic plates over geological time scales explains the formation of mountains, earthquakes, and ocean basins, supporting the idea of a long Earth history.
Unlike speculative or simple beliefs, the scientific methods have the quality of consistency across methods. Multiple dating methods applied to different rock samples from various locations provide consistent age estimates, strengthening the evidence for an old Earth.
To be clear about it, people then or now do not live beyond 130 years give or take a few without some sort of divine intervention which calls for a serious leap of faith. Due to the lack of modern medicine, sanitation, and farming techniques, the average life-spans have historically been much, much shorter than they are now, although you could get the odd ‘outlier’ of an individual living to some ripe old age comparable to a modern but not the biblical life-span. All evidence indicates that humans have not changed physiologically much in the last 5,000 years. That period is much longer for informed noncreationists. The geological time scale–as defined by international convention–depicts large spans of time from the beginning of the Earth to the present. In geochronology, time is generally measured in mya (million years ago), each unit representing the period of approximately 1,000,000 years in the past. Most scientists believe the universe began in the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. The oldest rocks found so far on Earth–based on zircon grains from Australia–have been dated at 4.1-4.2 billion years. Meteorites have also been dated at 4.6 billion years. Meteorites are considered to be remnants of a plant or asteroid that originally formed at the same time as the Earth, so that the Earth’s age is currently estimated to be 4.6 billion years. The oldest fossils are preserved remains of stromatolites, which are layers of lithified blue-green algae, dating to approximately 3.5 billion years before present.
There is no worldwide conspiracy to defraud the people of the Earth that the planet is old when it is not, nor that evolution is a fact and real when it is not. There has never been a single piece of evidence that held up to scientific scrutiny that either theory/factual observation is false. Hundreds of years of careful study by thousands of scholar scientists; and the accumulation of libraries full of incontrovertible evidence, successfully argue against such spurious notions even though four/fifths of the world’s population believe they are true.
The mechanism that Darwin proposed for evolution is natural selection. The 5 requirements for evolution are: mutation, non-random mating, gene flow, finite population size (genetic drift), and natural selection. Because resources are limited in nature, organisms with heritable traits that favor survival and reproduction will tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing the traits to increase in frequency over generations. Evolution as a factor and as a fact is a consequence of the interaction of multiple factors interacting including: the potential for a species to increase in number; the genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction; competition for an environment’s limited supply of the resources that individuals need in order to survive and reproduce. In order to get a paper published in any reputable, peer-reviewed journal, it must establish those parameters.
Nevertheless, controversy still persists among theologians with regards the longevity of the Patriarchs. One the one hand—in August 11, 2015, Monsignor Charles Pope wrote a learned tome on the subject and concluded: “Personally, I think we need to take the stated ages of the patriarchs at face value and just accept it as a mystery.”
And, “As we trace the history of this idea of millions of years, we will see that it is the product of speculation and imagination rohttps://blog.adw.org/author/cpope/oted in anti-biblical philosophical assumptions.” [Dr. Terry Mortenson, April 5, 2016]
On the other hand, that the earth and the universe are millions–even billions–of years old, is accepted as scientific fact today, not only by non-Christians but also by most Christians, including most Christian leaders and scholars. Old-earth views of three justifiably respected theology textbooks by Millard Erickson, Wayne Grudem, Gordon Lewis, and Bruce Demarest, are available.
“… progressive creation posits many supernatural acts of creation of plants and animals scattered over millions of years… [What was] the divine purpose for creating, say, the first plants supernaturally and instantly and then waiting for millions of years to create animals and the insects that pollinate plants? (Erickson 1983, p. 370)… the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:8–11 indicates that the creation days were in a chronological sequence… [therefore, not tenable]. (Erickson 1983, p. 382)… “considerable amounts of time are available for microevolution to have occurred since the word יוֹם (yôm), which is translated ‘day,’ may also be much more freely rendered.” [Ibid]. Erickson refers to scientific or empirical data that make the young-earth view improbable, if not impossible, (Erickson 1983).
“Though I’m no scientist, I’ve had challenges myself believing that the creation accounts are history.” [Matthew C. Harrison Letter From the President, The Magazine, January 3, 2018.
For some, it remains a conundrum. I will just leave it at that.