Are John Lennox and Jack Collins Right About the Age of the Earth?

In this one-minute video clip, Dr. Lennox contends that the Bible is silent about the age of the creation. So Christians should congenially agree to disagree. In his many lectures and his books, he has made it clear that although he does not believe in neo-Darwinian biological evolution, he does accept what evolutionary cosmologists and geologists say about the billions of years of cosmic and earth history. By this clip, Dr. Lennox is strongly encouraging Christians to accept those billions of years as fact.

I respectfully disagree with Dr. Lennox’s reasoning expressed in this clip, which I have transcribed here.

Lennox: You can believe that the Bible says the earth doesn’t move. You can, but you don’t have to. You can believe that the earth is young, and the universe is young.”

Embedded Ken Ham statement with a visual chart of the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11: “Then the age of the earth and universe, starting from the Bible, is 6,000 years.”

Lennox: “But you don’t have to because the Bible doesn’t claim it.”

Narrator says: “In the beginning God created the skies and the land.”

Lennox: “And then you have a sequence of days. In the Hebrew language, the first statement ‘In the beginning were the heavens and in the earth, and the earth was this and that’ is made in one Hebrew past tense. The tense changes to another past tense for the description of the days. Now what does that mean? Well, Professor Jack Collins, who was a scientist and is now the chief translator for the English Standard Version of the Bible says, I quote, ‘It means that the first statement occurs at an indefinite period before the second.’ What does the Bible say about the age of the universe and the earth? Absolutely nothing! So why fight about it, folks?”

I want to make eight brief points in response.

1. The movement of the earth?

Dr. Lennox’s comparison of the question of the movement of the earth to question of the age of the earth is invalid.

• The Bible gives no description of the solar system.
• All of the very few solitary Bible verses stating that the earth does not move are in poetic texts, where there is much figurative language, which should not be taken literally.
• Genesis 1–11 is not poetry. It is a detailed historical narrative, and combined with other historical texts, it gives us clear information to determine reasonably accurately when God created the earth and indeed the universe. These texts should be treated as straightforward literal history, just as we should treat the narrative texts of Exodus, Joshua, Luke, Acts, and other historical narratives in the Bible.
• So Dr. Lennox is comparing apples to alligators when linking the question of the earth’s movement with the question of the age of the creation.

2. Does the Bible claim that creation is 6,000 years old?

Dr. Lennox says that the Bible does not claim the universe is 6,000 years old. Of course, it does not say so in Genesis 1:1. And nowhere does the Bible say, “The universe is 6,000 years old” (which would be wrong the year or century or millennium after the statement was written). Nor does it say, “The earth is young” (which is too vague to have significance). But on the surface, the Bible certainly does appear to give us the information we need to calculate the approximate age of the creation.

If God didn’t want us to know when he created the world, why did he put so much chronological information in the Bible?

If God didn’t want us to know when he created the world, why did he put so much chronological information in the Bible? Why did he say in Genesis 1 that he created in six days and indicated they were normal, literal days by numbering them and repeating the refrain, “There was evening and there was morning,” and by saying that the sun, moon, and stars were created so we could measure years, seasons, and days?1 There are many ways in Hebrew that he could have indicated that he created over very long, indefinite periods of time.2 Or he could have borrowed similar indefinite time-words from Aramaic, as he did in Nehemiah and Daniel.3

And if God did not want to tell us the age of the creation, why did he give us chronological information in the unique genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, which tell us it was about 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham?4

And why did God sprinkle chronological markers throughout the Old Testament and New Testament to pinpoint the birth of Abraham just a little more that 2,000 years before Jesus? And why did God give chronological information about the sojourn in Egypt, the time of the judges, the reigns of kings, the birth of Jesus, and many other events in history?

The Bible is very concerned about chronology. It could not be more misleading if indeed God did not want us to know how long ago he created the world. And God could have easily said in Hebrew that he created over long ages of time, but he didn’t. He clearly says he created in six literal days only a little more than 6,000 years ago.5

3. Are the Hebrew verbs decisive?

In his book Seven Days That Divide the World, Dr. Lennox contends that the days of creation were literal, but that there is a long, indefinite period of time (he clearly believes millions of years) between each of the literal days.6 But in that book and here in this clip, he also attempts by reference to Hebrew verbs to slip in more time (clearly more millions or billions of years) in a supposed time period (Genesis 1:1–2) before the six days (which he says start in Genesis 1:3). To do so, he mentions the reasoning and scholarly authority of C. John (Jack) Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis.

Dr. Collins correctly observes that the first creative act (in Genesis 1:1) uses a Hebrew perfect tense (qǎtal) verb when the verse says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” But then after a parenthetical statement about the initial condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2 (when God does not create anything), Collins correctly observes that God uses a Hebrew waw-consecutive imperfect tense (wayyiqtōl) verb in describing the second creative act: “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

Dr. Lennox asks, “What does that mean?” In other words, what is the significance of the change in verb tense from perfect (qǎtal) to imperfect (wayyiqtōl)? Dr. Lennox quotes Dr. Collins: “It means that the first statement occurs at an indefinite period before the second.”7 In this way, Dr. Collins argues (and Dr. Lennox follows) that the Bible does not say when God created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1, and therefore, we can accept whatever the scientific majority says about the age of the creation. Dr. Collins puts a time gap of unknown length in Genesis 1:1–2 and then Genesis 1:3 begins the description of God’s “analogical days” which are like our days in some undefined way. But he never says how long those analogical days are.

It is significant to note that in the two very influential books where Dr. Collins makes this argument for a gap, he never discusses any other passages to prove his assertion that Genesis 1:1–2 describes events in the distant past that provide background to the events beginning in Genesis 1:3.8 But here are a few passages that use the same perfect (qǎtal) verb form followed by the imperfect (wayyiqtōl) verb to prove that Dr. Collins’ assertion is false.

Genesis 4:1

Now Adam knew (qǎtal) Eve his wife, and she conceived (wayyiqtōl) and bore (wayyiqtōl) Cain, saying (wayyiqtōl), “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

There is no time gap between “knew” and “conceived.” Those events happened essentially at the same time. And then there is no time gap of any significance (seconds or minutes at most) between “bore” and “saying.” But obviously nine months transpired between the two wayyiqtōl verbs “conceived” and “bore.”

Ezra 1:1

In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up (qǎtal) the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made (wayyiqtōl) a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing.

There is no time gap between “stirred up” and “made.” They happened essentially at the same moment.

Daniel 1:1

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came (qǎtal) to Jerusalem and besieged (wayyiqtōl) it.

There is no time gap between “came” and “besieged.” They happened the same day.

So these verses alone show that Dr. Collins has no basis to generalize that at the beginning of a narrative, when a qǎtal verb is followed by wayyiqtōl verbs, it means that the statement with the qǎtal verb is giving background information from a time long before the time referred to in the statement with the wayyiqtōl verb. This is one reason why his assertion that the event of Genesis 1:1 was an indefinitely long time (undoubtedly implied billions of years) before the event of Genesis 1:3 and that therefore the six days of creation begin in Genesis 1:3. But there are more reasons to reject Dr. Collins’ and Dr. Lennox’s old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1.

4. Are Dr. Collins and Dr. Lennox scientific authorities?

Dr. Lennox makes a point of telling us that Professor Jack Collins was a scientist and is now the chief translator for the English Standard Version of the Bible. Obviously, Dr. Lennox expects us to let that scholarly authority rest heavily on our minds so that we do not question Dr. Collins’ interpretation.

To be sure, Dr. Collins is a brilliant man. In addition to a PhD in Old Testament, he has a BS and MS in computer science and systems engineering. But that training does not make him an authority on geology and radiometric dating or on astrophysics and the interpretation of cosmic background radiation and the redshift of starlight, which are used by evolutionists to “prove” the big bang and billions of years. In fact, Dr. Collins has candidly admitted his lack of understanding on these scientific questions. Regarding astrophysics and the big bang theory he says,

Since I am not a cosmologist, I have no way of knowing whether the technical details of the Big Bang theory are sound or not. My own reading of Genesis means that I have no problem with the amount of time the theory calls for. The conclusions from these three lines of evidence seems to be fair, so far as I can tell. As long as we recognize that it’s a theory in physics, I see no reason to reject it. I say this because this kind of theory can’t tell us why we’re here, only how we came to be here.9

He has “no way of knowing” if the technical details in defense of the big bang theory are accurate. That is understandable since he has no scientific training in astrophysics. Yet he accepts the big bang theory as unquestionably true. And that is what gives him free reign for his unique reading of Genesis. Note, however, that nowhere in Genesis does it tell us why God created. But it sure tells us how we came to be here. Ten times in Genesis 1 the text says, “And God said.” He created by his word, just as Psalm 33:6–9 affirms. Furthermore, Genesis 1 clearly distinguishes between how the first plants and animals came into existence (supernaturally, by God’s spoken word) and how Adam and Eve were supernaturally created compared to how all subsequent plants, animals, and people would come into existence (by natural procreation). But there are more reasons discussed below to show why Dr. Collins (and Dr. Lennox) should reject the big bang and billions of years.

And regarding geology and dating methods, Dr. Collins says,

I conclude, then that I have no reason to disbelieve the standard theories of the geologists, including their estimate for the age of the earth. They may be wrong, for all I know; but if they are wrong, it’s not because they have improperly smuggled philosophical assumptions into their work.10

He does not know if the evolutionary geological theories and dating of the earth are right or not. But if they are wrong, he knows for sure it is not because of philosophical assumptions? How does he know that, given his stated geological ignorance? The fact is, however, that he could not be farther from the truth on this point. Naturalistic (i.e., anti-biblical), uniformitarian, philosophical assumptions have been controlling geology and astronomy/astrophysics, as well as biology for 200 years.11 So clearly, Dr. Collins’ interpretation of Scripture is very much influenced by his blind acceptance of the big bang and billions of years.

Dr. Collins’ interpretation of Scripture is very much influenced by his blind acceptance of the big bang and billions of years.

And while Dr. Lennox is also obviously a brilliant mathematician, this does not make him a scientific authority on the age of creation either. On that issue, Dr. Lennox, like Dr. Collins, is simply a very intelligent layman who is trusting the scientific majority.

5. What do they do with Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6?

Exodus 20:11 teaches clearly that God created everything in six days. And since the earth was one of those things and it was created in Genesis 1:1, not 1:3, this tells us that 1:1 is the beginning of the first day, and there was no time (or creation act) before the six days. In Mark 10:6, Jesus clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation,12 not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the big bang and billions of years are true, as Drs. Lennox and Collins want us to accept.

In Seven Days That Divide the World, Dr. Lennox deals with Exodus 20:11 in one paragraph and simply asserts that “there were only similarities between God’s creation week and our work week, but also obvious differences.” He says that God’s week occurred once, and ours are repeated. God does not need to rest, but we do, “and so on” (p. 57). Dr. Collins makes the same move in Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?, saying that our work and rest are not the same as God’s work and rest (p. 85–86, 97–99). But those points are irrelevant because Exodus 20:11 is not contrasting the nature of man’s work and rest compared to God’s work and rest but rather equating the duration of God’s creation week with our week.13

In Seven Days, Dr. Lennox briefly mentions Mark 10:6 but totally misses the relevance of Jesus’ words to the question of the age of the creation (p. 68, 70). In Science and Faith, Dr. Collins briefly attempts to dismiss the verse by saying that Jesus is only referring to the beginning of the human race, not the beginning of creation (p. 106–107). So in his view, Jesus’ words imply nothing about the age of the creation. But careful analysis of Jesus’ handling of Genesis 1–11 and, in particular, his several statements related to the age of the creation must not be ignored and quickly dismissed, if we call him our Lord.14

6. Does the order of God’s creative acts matter?

Both Dr. Lennox and Dr. Collins ignore the fact that the order of events in the evolutionary story of the universe contradicts in many details the order of events in the inerrant account of God’s creative acts in Genesis 1.15 Of course, if you ignore the details, you can convince yourself and others that your old-earth interpretation of Genesis harmonizes with the secular scientific claims. But that is not the way to handle the inerrant Word of God.

7. What do they say about death before the fall?

Both Dr. Lennox and Dr. Collins believe that millions of years of animal disease, death, and extinction occurred before Adam fell in sin and that only human death is the result of the fall. Their brief comments justifying this belief are shallow attempts to explain away Scripture passages. Such old-earth thinking only undermines the Bible’s clear teaching about the original creation and the fall.

It is also contrary to the character of God revealed in Scripture and is inconsistent with Christ’s future redemptive work at his coming when the curse on the whole creation will be removed. Jesus is coming back not to fix a terrible job of creating but to restore a world that he justly judged because of human sin.

All old-earth views undermine the gospel as well. If animals lived and died for millions of years before sin, then why was the death of animals required as a covering for sin in ancient Israel? And why did Jesus need to be the lamb of God to take away the sin of the world? Acceptance of millions of years creates very serious theological problems, which Drs. Lennox and Collins do not deal with.16

8. Is Noah’s flood relevant to this question?

It most certainly is, as Dr. Lennox and Dr. Collins fail to see. If Noah’s flood was a yearlong, catastrophic, global flood, as Genesis undeniably describes, it would have produced exactly what we see on the earth: thousands of feet of water-deposited sedimentary rock layers containing billions of fossils of former living creatures on every continent.17 It is irrational to believe that the global flood left no geological evidence. The fossil-bearing rock layers could not have formed in the “very good” creation before Adam’s fall in sin and God’s curse. Those rocks and fossils must have formed after Adam’s sin, and the most logical cause of most of it is Noah’s flood. Therefore, there is no evidence for millions of years. The majority of geologists have misinterpreted the evidence because of their rejection of the eyewitness testimony of the Creator in Genesis. The flood washes away millions of years.18

Dr. Lennox says nothing about the flood in his Seven Days That Divide the World. In the year of his book (2011), I spoke in a debate-type conference in Birmingham, Alabama, where John Lennox, Hugh Ross, and Michael Behe also spoke. In a question time, someone asked Dr. Lennox if he believed the flood was global. He evaded the question and said instead that the flood was historical. Clearly, he believes it was a local flood in the Middle East.

Similarly, Dr. Collins only mentions the flood on three pages in his Science and Faith: Friends and Foes? He has no discussion of Genesis 6–9. In his Reading Genesis Well, he ignores the question of the globality of the flood and its relation to geology. He too apparently believes the flood was localized in the Mesopotamian valley of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Like so many other brilliant evangelical scholars, these two men reject the global flood, not for sound biblical reasons but because they have blindly accepted what the secular geologists claim. They claim to believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, but they ignore and deny his clear Word and submit instead to the authority of godless scientists.

Conclusion

On John Lennox’s personal web page, he says, “Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”19

I agree. Atheism is stupid. It is a willful and sinful suppression of obvious truth (Romans 1:18–20). But I would also reword that to say,

Either humans owe their existence to a God who, contrary to his words in Genesis, spent billions of years causing gas and dust clouds to slowly condense to form stars, galaxies, and the solar system, and then spent 500 million years to repeatedly create and then destroy plants and animals through disease and natural disasters (which he could have prevented) before he finally got around to creating Adam and Eve.

Or humans owe their existent to a God who in infinite wisdom, love, and goodness supernaturally created a very good world (with no death or natural evils) in six literal days before creating Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago, as he said in plain language.

It is strange that very intelligent Christians prefer to believe the first scenario by unquestioningly following the godless, secular scientific majority.

No, Dr. Lennox, we cannot agree with your way of thinking and your and Dr. Collins’ way of misinterpreting Genesis and ignoring critically important passages of Scripture. We won’t fight you or verbally attack you personally, but we will contend for the clear truth of Scripture and against the deceptive claims of the atheism-controlled scientific majority.

More could be said to demonstrate that Dr. Lennox and Dr. Collins are wrong.20 They are misleading millions of Christians, including influential ones such as Wayne Grudem.21 They need to repent and return to the truth of the inerrant Word of God.