There’s a big battle brewing among young-Earth creationists, and the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia — are right in the middle of it.
Their post on this hot issue is About 6,000 Years or 10,000 Years — Does It Matter?, written by Bodie Hodge, Hambo’s son-in-law. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
In a culture that demands Christians give up the Bible and accept the secular humanist age of the earth at billions of years, it seems the discussion about 6,000 years vs. 10,000 years gets left behind. Yes, biblical creationists unite to battle the secular dating system and that is the “bigger fish to fry,” but at times, we can’t ignore the little fish in the bucket that needs to be cooked up too.
Bodie has been assigned the task of arguing about the little fish. He says:
Some Christians try to avoid the subject by generically stating that God created. Of course that leaves room for Christians who mix their Christianity with certain tenets of other religions like humanism’s origins account. For example, when Christians deviate from the Bible in Genesis and deny biblical origins, they are trading it for secular humanistic origins such as evolution, millions of years, and/or the big bang.
We can’t have that! Bodie tells us:
But another issue crops up as well. Have you ever seen statements of faith declaring that creation occurred “6,000–10,000 years ago”? Sometimes people put a range because they haven’t researched the subject. But regardless, they want to leave open the possibility of an extended age of the earth. Why? I’ve talked to others who profess to believe the earth is 20,000–30,000 years old. I’ve even spoken with other Christians who claim to believe in biblical creation (i.e., a young earth and six-day creation), but they really believe the earth is about 50,000 years old!
That’s absurd — we want certainty! Bodie asks:
Do we really think that if we stretch out some dates in the Old Testament we will look better to the world? I suggest not. The world wants you to doubt God’s Word because they doubt God’s Word.
Bodie’s right. A few thousand extra years won’t make AIG look better. He continues:
So what is the earth’s age? About 6,000 or 10,000 years or what? Answers in Genesis has carefully placed in our Statement of Faith that
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
Why do we say it this way? The Bible spans from the beginning of time (creation) until the New Testament was complete, so the logical place for a calculation based on the Bible is from creation to Christ; then we can add in the time from Christ until today. So we work out the approximate calculation from creation to Christ.
This range from creation to Christ is placed at about 4,000 years, not on a whim but for a very precise reason. AiG limited the earth’s age to 4,000 years in the Statement of Faith because of virtually every chronology based on ancient original language texts (e.g., Masoretic, but also consulting the Samaritan Pentateuch and Dead Sea Scrolls). When calculated, we arrive at the date of about 4,000 years between Creation Week and Christ.
They’re so meticulous! It’s almost as if they were there! Let’s read on:
Few realize that to get 10,000 years, you need to put a gap between every single person from Adam to Christ because, really, you are doubling the 4,000 years to 8,000 years between Adam to Christ. No one tries to add 4,000 years from Christ to today and say that Christ lived 6,000 years ago! But if you put an additional person between every name from Adam to Jesus, that would be over 70 missing people in the Luke 3 genealogy.
That’s absurd! Another excerpt:
Naturally, this calls into question the integrity and accuracy of the Bible in Genesis 5, Genesis 11, 1 Chronicles 1, Luke 3, and others — which makes this a serious biblical authority issue. It would call into question the majority of accounts where fathers and sons are discussed as overlapping in the text too. If you can’t trust the Bible in the area of genealogies, then why trust it anywhere? This would be a dangerous step toward unbelief, especially if taught to unsuspecting children.
Skipping a lot of genealogical material, we get to this near the end:
When you leave open the possibility for the earth to be 10,000 years old, you are suggesting that God erred in numerous places in the Bible. My humble suggestion is to be more precise based on the biblical data that is given. It is better to “err” on the side of Scripture than the side of sinful, fallible man’s ideas about the past.
That’s a good place to quit. Bodie’s right — when presented with a conflict between the bible and “sinful, fallible man’s ideas about the past,” it’s always better to go with the bible. Anything else is heresy, and leads to the Lake of Fire.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.