Age of the Earth—Does It Matter What Christians Believe?

Our Conversation with Joe Owen

What do we mean by “other views of Genesis”?

Various views or perspectives on how to interpret the first 11 chapters of Genesis call into question the historical authenticity of the creation, fall, and flood accounts. Some of these include the Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory. These different approaches are sometimes an attempt to reconcile the biblical timeline with the timeline of modern, naturalistic thinking, and sometimes a total denial of biblical events based on the same thinking.

We must remember that the Bible interprets the Bible. The Old Testament and New Testament authors (including Jesus) who make reference to Genesis 1–11 unanimously interpret its events as actual history. This in and of itself should end the debate, though sadly for many it has not.

Why is it so important to have a proper understanding of Genesis?

Dismissing the historicity of the Old Testament has provoked the rise of many false interpretations of Scripture. Jesus and many New Testament authors based their teachings on Genesis, including the creation mandates and ordinances for the gospel itself. Genesis gives us an understanding of who God is; who mankind is; how God relates to mankind as his image bearers; the reason for evil, suffering, death; and so much more.

Also, Genesis gives us the promise of redemption and begins the chronology from the first Adam to the Last Adam, Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:22). Without Genesis, we wouldn’t have a solid foundation for answering life’s questions, inevitably leading to an ambiguous understanding of the gospel itself.

What is the best defense for believing in a literal Genesis?

The best defense for any believer should be the intent of Scripture itself, and this should come before any scientific evidence. Numbers 12:7–8 reveals the intended genre of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). The Pentateuch should not be interpreted like other prophetic genres of the Old Testament.

The authors of the New Testament emphasized the plain, historical (thus, literal) interpretation of Genesis. Jesus focuses on the Adam and Eve clearly described in Genesis as his foundation for marriage. Paul connects the historicity of the first Adam to the Last Adam, stressing our need for redemption. Peter focuses on the historicity and universal reach of the flood as a foundation for understanding the extent and intent of God’s judgment on the wicked, as well as his grace with others to point to the future judgment and salvation.

What are the most common views of Genesis you encounter in Latin America?

Probably the two most common views of Genesis that I encounter, outside of the literal view, are the Day-Age and Gap Theories. As early as 1890, C. I. Scofield began promoting the gap theory (an idea first introduced by Thomas Chalmers in the 1800s in Scotland) through his work Iglesia Evangélica Misión Centroamericana (Evangelical Church of the Central American Mission). For many in Central America, the Gap Theory is the only stance they were taught in seminary. Both the Gap and Day-Age Theories are attempts to mix Christianity with long ages from the religion of naturalism.

How does the interpretation of Genesis inform a person’s other beliefs about God and the Bible?

How we interpret Genesis is telling as to how we regard scriptural authority. Do we trust God for answers about the mysteries of the past, or will we challenge his inspiration of the Bible? Do we really believe that inspiration of Scripture supersedes and is not contingent upon any human limitations of the past?

What are some of the dangers and implications of other views of Genesis?

Holding other views of Genesis is the symptom of a greater problem: distrust of God’s knowledge. What we believe about Genesis informs how we respond to questions of suffering, disease, bloodshed, and death.

In my experience, the most common objections to God relate to the problem of evil. Any other understanding of Genesis outside of literal, historical narrative undermines the obvious and purposeful chronology of events as given by God. This narrative reveals the introduction of suffering and death as a result of man’s sin. Without the fall (Genesis 3), any hope of a future restoration is undermined. And if we teach others that God’s Word is open to interpretation, we also undermine other historical events in Scripture, such as the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus.

How do you see these dangers and implications playing out in the culture where you minister?

In Latin America, I am seeing a boom of interest in apologetics, especially in the last five years. Sadly, I am also seeing a general tendency to make Scripture fit the argument, instead of vice versa. That is why biblical authority is the underlying foundation that cannot be ignored or underestimated.

From your experience, how can we best share the truth with another Christian who holds a different view of Genesis?

In my experience, I usually need to sit down and have a careful conversation with the person. I begin by giving my testimony to help find a point of commonality (we are on the same team), and then speak about subjects where we would agree. Then, because of Latin American culture, I don’t ask them to specify their ideas about Genesis or defend their position, but I say something like, “Many people don’t see this as important or clear in Scripture, but if we first start with scriptural authority and theological implications, there is no question.” From there, I slowly give a defense.