Did Jesus Teach Young Earth Creationism? Examining the Evidence

 

"Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g., creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men’s ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1–9). In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the 'beginning of creation,' not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?" —Dr. Timothy Mortenson, Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years? (1)

This claim, frequently promoted by Answers in Genesis and similar pro-YEC sources, may initially seem convincing. If Jesus treated Genesis as literal history, wouldn’t that mean he supported a Young Earth perspective? However, a deeper examination reveals significant issues with this assertion.

Understanding Young Earth Creationism

Modern Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a relatively recent movement, gaining widespread traction in the 1960s. While it emphasizes a young universe—approximately 6,000 to 7,000 years old—it also incorporates several additional doctrinal positions, including but not limited to:

• A strict, literal interpretation of Scripture, emphasizing a plain reading of Genesis.

• A six-day creation week consisting of 24-hour days.

• An originally flawless creation—free from pain, sickness, death and entropy. (2)

• A world where all animals were originally herbivores, with no predation.

• A catastrophic global flood shaping most geological formations and fossil deposits.

• The existence of an advanced antediluvian civilization, possessing at least iron-age technology—or potentially technology comparable to our own—that was ultimately destroyed by the Flood. (3, 4)

• The coexistence of humans and dinosaurs well into recorded history. (5, 6)

• A water vapor or ice canopy (raqia [רָקִיעַ]) positioned above the atmosphere or at the edge of the universe. (7)

Given these doctrinal positions, the claim that Jesus adhered to modern YEC ideology requires careful scrutiny.

How Often Did Jesus Reference Genesis?

One common assertion supporting the idea that Jesus was a YEC is that he quoted Genesis more than any other book. However, Jesus directly quoted Genesis only once—Matthew 19:4-6 (and its parallel in Mark 10:6-7):

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

While Jesus referenced Genesis indirectly 18 times throughout the Gospels, these make up only about 7% of his total Old Testament references. In contrast, Psalms was quoted 11 times, Deuteronomy 10 times, Isaiah 8 times, and Exodus 7 times—contradicting the claim that Genesis was Jesus’ most-referenced book.

Addressing the Claim: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth

Some proponents of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) argue that Jesus affirmed a young earth in passages such as Luke 16:29-31 and John 3:12, 5:46-47. However, a closer examination of these texts reveals that they do not address the age of the earth or endorse modern YEC doctrine.

Luke 16:29-31: Affirming the Authority of Scripture

In Luke 16:29-31, Jesus recounts the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man, suffering in Hades, pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers. Abraham responds:

"They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them."

"'No, father Abraham,’ he said. ‘But if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'"

"But he told him, 'If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"

This passage emphasizes the sufficiency of Scripture for guiding people to repentance. It does not address creation, the age of the earth, or scientific interpretations of Genesis. The reference to "Moses and the prophets" affirms the authority of the Old Testament, but it does not specify how one should interpret Genesis 1.

John 5:46-47: Jesus and Moses

In John 5:46-47, Jesus says:

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe my words?"

Here, Jesus affirms that Moses wrote about him, reinforcing the continuity between the Old Testament and his own teachings. However, this statement does not indicate that Jesus endorsed a specific interpretation of Genesis. Instead, he highlights the importance of believing Moses' writings in a theological sense—particularly regarding the coming of the Messiah.

John 3:12: Earthly and Heavenly Truths 

In John 3:12, Jesus says:

"If I have told you about earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"

This verse highlights the distinction between earthly and heavenly truths. Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, emphasizing that if people struggle to accept foundational spiritual truths, they will find it even harder to grasp deeper, heavenly realities. Some YEC proponents might argue that "earthly things" refer to a literal interpretation of Genesis, including a young earth. However, the context of John 3:12 suggests that Jesus is addressing faith and understanding with regards to salvation rather than making a statement about the age of the earth or modern scientific knowledge.

Much like Luke 16:29-31 and John 5:46-47, John 3:12 reinforces the importance of belief and spiritual comprehension rather than endorsing a specific interpretation of Genesis. Jesus is urging Nicodemus—and by extension, all believers—to trust in his teachings, which extend beyond physical realities into profound spiritual truths.

The Importance of Proper Biblical Interpretation

As Dr. John H. Walton notes in The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest:

"If we want to reach an understanding about how we should go about reading a particular passage in the Bible, we have to understand how we should go about reading the Bible more generally. In particular, we want to have a way to approach the biblical text that we are comfortable applying to any part of it, as opposed to selectively choosing an approach based on whether it produces the conclusions that we want."

Applying this principle, we must recognize that questioning an interpretation of Scripture is not the same as rejecting Scripture itself. In fact, rejecting incorrect interpretations demonstrates discernment and respect for God's Word. Luke 16:29-31 and John 5:46-47 affirm the authority of Scripture, but they do not provide evidence that Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist.

Context Matters: What Was Jesus Actually Saying?

Jesus' reference to Genesis in Matthew 19 is not about cosmology, creation timelines, dinosaurs, or flood geology—it’s about marriage and divorce. He draws on Genesis to affirm gender and the sanctity of marriage, not to establish a scientific framework for the age of the earth. Consider that the Hebrew title for the first book of the Bible, Bereshit (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית), literally means "in the beginning." This nuance suggests that when Jesus uses the term "the beginning" in Matthew 19, he may not be referring to a specific moment in time but rather alluding to the book of Genesis itself. In doing so, he emphasizes its theological significance and its relevance to the discussion on marriage and divorce. 

The idea that Jesus endorsed modern Young Earth Creationism requires reading contemporary debates into ancient texts. Instead, his teachings emphasize Scripture’s theological and moral implications rather than detailed scientific claims.

Conclusion

While Jesus acknowledged Genesis and referenced it for theological purposes, the claim that he was a Young Earth Creationist in the modern sense is an oversimplification. He did not address scientific interpretations of creation, nor did he promote the core doctrines of contemporary YECism. Instead, his teachings focused on the authority of Scripture, the nature of God’s creation, and the importance of faithfulness in relationships.

Ultimately, Christians should approach such claims with discernment, ensuring that theological perspectives are grounded in sound interpretation rather than modern projections onto ancient texts.

My Journey Out of YECism

 

My journey away from Young Earth Creationism (YECism) began with a simple yet profound question: Is YECism supported by Scripture?

I was raised in a YEC environment, and my only exposure to apologetics came from Answers in Genesis. As a result, I believed evangelism meant convincing people that evolution was false and that YECism was true. To me, Christian apologetics was synonymous with young-earth apologetics.

However, after witnessing close friends and family deconstruct their faith one after another, I was compelled to study apologetics more deeply—focusing on the essentials, particularly the evidence for Jesus and His resurrection. This naturally led me to explore topics like textual criticism, the reliability of the New Testament, and the cultural context and literary genres within Scripture.

Much to my surprise, I discovered that the evidence for my faith was far stronger than I had ever known, based on what I had been taught by AiG. This realization prompted me to apply the same principles I used in studying the New Testament to my YEC beliefs. At the time, I was still committed to YECism and approached the question with a genuine desire to determine whether the teachings I had accepted and had shared with others were truly supported by Scripture.

I was not questioning whether the Bible was true or authoritative—I already believed it was. Nor was I seeking to reinterpret Scripture to accommodate a secret fascination with evolution or millions of years. Rather, I wanted to ensure that the things I had claimed about Scripture were indeed biblically grounded. If they were not, I understood that I needed to adjust my thinking to align with God's Word.

Applying the same critical criteria that had confirmed the reliability of the New Testament and using the logic I had previously employed to challenge non-YEC interpretations, I soon became convinced that the Bible did not support YECism or many of the claims I had once made about it. As a result, I changed my stance.

My departure from YECism was not based on accepting evolution or scientific evidence imposed onto Scripture—it was rooted in a deeper understanding of the text in its original context.

Contrary to the claims of AiG and other YEC organizations, there is a fundamental difference between asking, "Is the Bible true?" and "Does the Bible support a particular teaching?" The former is often a question of trust—whether the Bible is reliable on a given point. Someone asking this question may ultimately rely on their own judgment, potentially dismissing Scripture if it contradicts their preconceived ideas.

Conversely, someone asking whether the Bible supports a specific teaching is engaging in discernment. They are more likely to allow Scripture to shape their conclusions, adjusting their understanding if their initial beliefs prove to be inaccurate.

As Christians, we should strive to be in the latter category—approaching Scripture with humility and a willingness to be shaped by God's truth rather than filtering it through our own biases. Instead of seeking confirmation for our existing beliefs, we must allow the Word to refine and correct us, growing in wisdom and understanding.

The Serpent's Lie

“The very first attack, what I call ‘the Genesis 3 Attack,’ was on God’s Word: ‘And [Satan] said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said?’ (Genesis 3:1). Satan used the ploy to get Eve to question God’s Word, thus creating doubt that ultimately led to unbelief. That same attack on God’s Word has never let up and continues each day.” (1)

~Ken Ham
“Choosing to Resist ‘The Genesis 3 Attack’”
01/25/2017
Accessed via answersingenesis.com 03/28/2025

“Now, the ‘lie’ is more than evolution or millions of years. It speaks to a deeper issue—one that has plagued humanity since Adam and Eve took that first bite of the forbidden fruit.

“It begins with the question, ‘Did God actually say?’ (Genesis 3:1). I like to call this the ‘Genesis 3 attack’ of our age—one that causes people to question what God has revealed to us in his Word. We are warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that Satan will use this same Genesis 3 attack on us as he did to Eve—to make us disbelieve the Word of God.” (2)

~Ken Ham
Facebook Post
03/27/2025

In essence, this is correct. The serpent in Genesis 3 did ultimately succeed in convincing the man and woman to doubt God's character and break His command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And it is certainly true that the “lie” of Genesis 3 is much deeper than the creation-evolution controversy. However, I would present to the reader that while the serpent's deception indeed begins with a question in Genesis 3:1, the actual lie itself is found in Genesis 3:4-5. That being said, there is much more in Genesis 3:1-7 that warrants our attention.

First of all, it should be noted that the “serpent” in Genesis 3 is not a normal member of the animal kingdom. Nor is he ever called Satan in the Old Testament. This is a later development. In Genesis 3 the word translated “serpent” is “nachash” [נָחָשׁ]. This word has multiple meanings in Hebrew including “snake/serpent,” “divination” or “burning/shining [one].” As the late Hebrew scholar Dr. Michael Heiser notes, within the cultural context of the ancient Near East, this language implies that the serpent in Genesis 3 was a divine being—an “elohim” [אֱלהִים]—and not a normal snake at all. (3) This explains why Eve and her husband (who was present with her according to Genesis 3:6) were comfortable speaking with the nachash in the first place as well as why they were so trusting of him.

Second, while certainly disingenuous, the nachash's baiting question in Genesis 3:1 was not an outright lie in itself. He did not accurately represent what God had said (see Genesis 2:16-17), but he also did not claim that this was in fact what God had commanded. The question itself is framed as a harmless request for clarification, veiling his nefarious intentions: “Did God really say, ‘You can't eat from any tree...?’” Hence Eve was not deceived by this question. She understood that this was not what God had said and corrected the nachash saying, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it…’” However, she also took things a bit further than this and added “...or touch it, or you will die.” This means that the first person to actually change God’s Word and attribute said change to God wasn’t the nachash—it was Eve. She did not deny what God had commanded by removing something from His Word—she added an additional commandment instead. 

Third, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden?’” is not the lie the serpent used to seduce Eve. It isn’t accurate to what God said, as previously noted. But the first lie he told Eve was in Genesis 3:4 when he openly denied God's warning that mankind would be sentenced to death should they choose to disobey and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (see Genesis 3:22-24). Even so, it was his following comments in Genesis 3:5 that sowed the seeds of doubt in God's character and trustworthiness and ultimately seduced the woman, “...God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God [elohim], knowing good and evil.”

The serpent's lie wasn’t “Did God really say?”. It was that God was untrustworthy, and that mankind could become like God (or gods/divine beings). This was the same lie the nachash told himself before he ever tempted Eve.

In Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 the human kings of Babylon and Tyre respectively are compared to a non-human, divine rebel in Eden who became proud and sought to exalt himself above the throne of God—to become not only like the Most High, but greater than Him. The original lie, therefore, is that a created being can usurp the authority of Yahweh and become like the Most High.

This is the lie that seduced Eve according to Genesis 3:6: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it…”

Adam and Eve did not fall because the nachash said “Did God really say?”. They fell because they believed that they could become like God/gods. Eve was the first one to add to God’s commands out of a desire to obey them. And it was the desire to become like God/gods, knowing both good and evil, that led the man and woman to sin.

Ultimately, this is what all sin is. When we sin, we reject the authority of God in our lives and choose instead to live by our own subjective moral standards. In so doing, we raise ourselves above the throne of the Most High and become gods in our own eyes. That is the original lie. And it is just as potent today as it was in the beginning. 

 

Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth

The following is a critique of the "Six Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth" presented in the article Does the Age of the Earth Matter to the Gospel? and the Is Genesis History? Bible study. 

1. God has accurately revealed the history of the universe and man’s role in it. To allegorize or de-historicize any of those historical events is to question the ability of special revelation to speak clearly about history.

A Christian can easily affirm the historicity of Genesis without affirming the Young Earth Creationist interpretative model. The majority of Old Earth Creationists affirm that Genesis 1-11 is historical, as do some proponents of Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism. The disagreement between Old Earth and Young Earth interpretations of Genesis 1-11 lies in how best to interpret the six creation days (yôm [יוֹם]); the extent of the Great Flood; and whether or not the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete or telescoped for theological purposes (as we see in other biblical genealogies such as those found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke). Old Earth Creationists generally do not discredit the historicity of Genesis 1-11 or attempt to allegorize it.

For example: Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) posits that the six creation days should be understood as six, consecutive ages (which is a primary, literal definition of the Hebrew word yôm). Conversely, Dr. John Lennox (johnlennox.org) believes the six days to be literal, 24-hour days marking particular points in history whereby God spoke a new facet of creation into existence. However, Dr Lennox believes that these days are not consecutive days of a normal Earth week, but are instead separated by a long, unspecified period of time. Both interpretations maintain that the creation days are literal and represent actual history, while at the same time countering the Young Earth Creationist claim that each of the six creation days are conservative, 24-hour days in a normal Earth week. 

2. God created the entire universe fully-functional in six normal days. To greatly extend the length of time and significantly alter events transforms the doctrine of creation into a slow, indirect, and death-filled process; this, in turn, transforms one’s view of God and His nature.

Extending the length of the creation days does not necessarily mean that one believes God's creative act to be a slow, indirect process. By this logic one could argue that God's redemptive plan is a slow, indirect process simply because God did not move to end Satan once and for all in Eden. If God is truly sovereign, then why bother waiting? If God could deal with sin on the spot in Eden, then why go through the incarnation or the agony of crucifixion and death?

God exists outside of our space-time and is not bound by the limitations of his creation. Nothing in God's plan happens early or late. Everything happens according to his plan, precisely when he means it to. The creation does not get to dictate how and when God created. We do not get to place limits on God by telling him that he could only create in six, literal days or that he had to create over billions of years. God is the creator of all. He could have created the universe however and whenever he wanted to. Our role as his creation is to submit to him, regardless of how long it took him to create the universe. 

3. God formed Adam and Eve in His image at the beginning, thereby ensuring His image would be reflected somewhere in the universe at every point in its history. If one places long ages before man’s creation, it means God’s image has been missing from creation for almost all of its history.

This is a bit of an odd statement, and more than a little concerning from a theological perspective. Even though humanity's role as God's image-bearers is vital to understanding our place in God's plan, it is not an essential element of the gospel. Nor is it a vital and/or necessary aspect of God's creative act in that the universe is (and was at the time of creation) capable of functioning quite well without us. The created universe is essential for human beings to exist, but we are not essential for the universe to exist.

Arguing that God needed to ensure that his image was reflected in the creation from the beginning implies that God created the physical universe and mankind specifically to make up for a deficit in his being–he needed to have something other than himself to reflect his image "at every point in history."

We must remember that the created universe was made, first and foremost, for God's glory according to his pleasure. He did not need to create anything at all. Nor did he need to create mankind to be his image-bearers–he chose to.

Furthermore, insisting that mankind had to be present from the beginning of creation in order to ensure that God's image would be reflected at every point in history downplays the fact that, according to the most literal, straightforward reading of the text, mankind was not created until day six. There were five whole days of creation in which there were no people to reflect God's image! If this were truly an essential element of Christian doctrine or the created order, then we would expect to find the creation of man on day one not day six!

Additionally, if we maintain that man's presence in creation was necessary in order for God's image to be reflected at all points in history, we must therefore also conclude that the universe was in some way broken for the first five days of creation as God's image was absent from creation until day six. Obviously, the creation was incomplete before the creation of Eve (ie. God's final creative act). But this in no way implies that the creation was incapable of functioning without the presence of a divine image-bearer.

Of course, the necessity of having something and/or someone to reflect God's image at all points in history is not an essential doctrine of Christianity, the gospel, or the Bible overall. Which is what makes this particular argument for the Young Earth interpretation so odd. 

4. God cursed the creation as a result of Adam’s sin, bringing death and corruption into a very good world. To say that there were billions of years of corruption and death before Adam’s sin means God created a universe filled with death. This not only changes one's view of the fall, but of the nature of our redemption in time.

As uncomfortable as it may be for us moderns, the biblical authors did not view animal death and as evil. Many places in Scripture actually present animal death as a good thing.
Psalm 104:21, 147:9 and Job 38:41-49 praise God for providing carnivores and scavengers with food. Psalm 104:25-30 likewise praises God for feeding leviathan and glorifies God as the one who both gives and takes away life. This reverence for God as the author and sustainer of life is also seen in Job 1:20-22 and Matthew 10:29.
Likewise, the Scriptures also present animal sacrifice as a good thing, not only for ritual purification and atonement for sin but also thanksgiving and praise (Leviticus 7:11-38; 23:24-25; Psalm 116). Furthermore, it was God Himself who allowed humans to eat animals; implicitly through the harsh conquest verbs used in Genesis 1:28 (kabash [כָּבַשׁ] and radah [רָדָה]) and explicitly in Genesis 9:3 wherein God reestablished the Genesis 1:28 covenant with Noah and his descendants. It was also God who provided the final sacrifice to permanently take away the sins of the world–Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is incredibly difficult for one to maintain the position that animal death –or death in general–is always evil or goes against God's plan and purpose for this world. That being said, what does the Bible say about animal death? The four proof texts used to defend the young earth creationist position are Romans 5:12; 6:23; 8:19-23, and–to a lesser degree–1 Corinthians 15:21. 1 Corinthians 15:21 in particular is obviously referring only to human beings as it occurs in the context of a discussion on the resurrection of the dead and makes no mention of animal death whatsoever. The same can likewise be said of Romans 6:23, which again refers specifically to human beings as out of every living thing God made, human beings alone are capable of committing sin.

Therefore, the debate over whether or not animal death was a part of God's original creation lies in how to interpret Paul's use of "the world" (kosmon [κόσμον]) in Romans 5:12. Does Paul here mean that sin and death entered into the created order through Adam? Or is Paul using kosmon the same way it is used in passages like Romans 12:2 and John 3:16 to refer to the inhabitants of the Earth (i.e., mankind)?

Nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly say that God cursed the creation with death on account of Adam's sin. (The Bible also does not explicitly say that animals died prior to the fall of man.) Romans 5:12 clearly states that death spread to all humans because all humans sin. Likewise, Romans 8:19-23 says nothing of the creation itself being cursed with death on account of Adam's transgression. Instead, we find that the creation was subjected to frustration (mataiotēti [ματαιότητι]) and decay (phthoras [φθορᾶς]), not death and decay. (To be fair, some modern English translations, like the New Living Translation, insert the word death into Romans 8:21 even though the word is absent in the Greek.) 

The word mataiotēti can also be translated as futility or vanity (as seen in the Interlinear Bible produced by Hendrickson Publishers). This seems to be an allusion to what we see in the Book of Ecclesiastes which emphasizes the futility of a life lived apart from the experiential knowledge of God. Though, there is also strong evidence that Paul is alluding to Isaiah 24-27 as there are many direct parallels between these chapters and Romans 8:19-23.

Pathoras, the word translated as decay in Romans 8:21, can also mean corruption, or rottenness. Again, in the greater context of Romans, Paul seems to be referring to moral and/or spiritual corruption and the broken world-system(s) created by fallen human beings (i.e., kosmon) rather than the whole of creation itself. Romans 8:19-23 would therefore seem to have less to do with physical death and more to do with the spiritual consequences of sin, given the overall context of Romans itself. The creation groans under bondage to fallen humans waiting eagerly for the Sons of God (i.e., humans redeemed by the blood of Christ) to take their rightful place at God's side as co-heirs of Christ and co-rulers over creation (John 1:12-13, Romans 8:14-17).

One final point of note is that Genesis 1 does not claim that the original creation was perfect. God declared the creation to be "very good" (towb meod [מְאֹ֑ד ט֖וֹב]). (You will notice that the original article makes a subtle note of this as well, though it does not go out of its way to draw attention to the distinction.) 

God did not say that his creation was perfect, blameless, without blemish, spot or defect (tamim [תָּמִים]). He said that it was very good. Which, in the cultural context of the ancient Near East, would imply that the creation had been brought from a state of chaos into order and was functioning according to God's design and purpose. Yet many people throughout history have nonetheless attempted to shoehorn perfection into the text. After all, how could a good and perfect God create anything less than perfect?

However, when we impose our understanding of perfection onto God's claim that the creation was good, we are essentially judging God and his creation by our definition of what we think perfection should look like (i.e., Heaven and/or the New Creation described in Scripture) rather than submitting to God's definition of what he found to be "very good" (that is: operating according to his will, plan and purpose).

If God gave an imperfect creation his stamp of approval and we attempt to change what God said in order to imply that everything was perfect according to our definition of perfection, then we are essentially telling our creator what he can and cannot do with his creation, rather than letting him define his own terms. 

We must also remember that God created Satan and the angels who fell with him, as well as Adam, Eve and every other human soul, with the capacity to sin. They were not perfect in the same sense that God is perfect. Furthermore, anything God creates will naturally be less than he is in some respect simply due to the fact that God created the creation. A creature and/or creation cannot be equal to or greater than its creator–it will always be less than the one who created it. This is the nature of the creator-creature relationship. 

All that to say, if God were to say that animal death was acceptable as part of his plan for this creation, then who are we to tell God that he is wrong for creating such a world? God is the creator–he can do whatever he wants to do however he wants to do it. He could have created a perfect world without the possibility of sin or any sort of death. Or he could have created a world where animal death was an essential mechanism for a balanced and life-sustaining ecosystem just as easily. Likewise, humans could have been created innately immortal, or humans could have been created with the capacity to die if they were ever to sin and break fellowship with God (the latter case seems to be the more likely scenario given what we see in Genesis 3:22-24).

In many respects, this topic in particular speaks volumes in regard to our fallen nature. We who worship and revere God hold his character in high regard. Yet, in our pious zeal, we may actually find ourselves guilty of judging God by our own flawed standards. It is therefore crucial for us to recognize that God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not like our thoughts. We must let God be the judge of what is and is not good, rather than ourselves. 

5. God judged the entire world with a global flood, killing all land creatures, birds, and people. The idea of a local flood not only violates the history revealed in special revelation, but it denies the past reality of global judgment in space and time, thereby casting doubt on the universality of the judgment to come.

The theological bedrock of a historic flood is universal judgment and deliverance. The flood need not be global to be universal, so long as all human beings (i.e., the only physical beings capable of committing sin due to their role as God's image-bearers) aside from Noah and his family perished. 

Additionally, we must also allow for the possibility that the total destruction language found in the flood account could be Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. We find similar examples of total destruction language used throughout Scripture (particularly in the context of divine judgment) as well as in extra biblical sources. 

Again, the historicity of the flood and the authority of Scripture (Special Revelation) is not in doubt. The question is whether or not the flood should be interpreted as a global event given the ancient cultural and literary context of Genesis.

6. God providentially controls every moment of time and history, starting with the first creation and the fall, guiding it to redemption in Christ, and ushering everything toward the new creation. If the timeline of the universe is not the timeline of the Bible, then God’s providence is emptied of its meaning and purpose: it takes responsibility for billions of years of emptiness, silence, and death.

God's sovereignty and providence are not dependent on a young creation.  

As previously stated, God could have ended evil in the garden. But he didn't. He allowed history to play out as it has according to his will. If God allowed for billions of years to pass before the creation of man, who are we to challenge his methods? 

God is absolutely sovereign and in complete control of his creation–no matter how old or young the universe might be. His sovereignty is not dependent on the age of the universe. To argue such would be to lessen one's view of God by limiting him and his divine attributes in direct proportion to the age of his creation. This also creates a false dichotomy wherein one is forced to choose between belief in a sovereign, personal God or a deistic God based solely on the age of the universe; a young universe equals a powerful, sovereign God whereas an old universe equals an impotent God, who is all but absent from his creation. 

All that to say, belief in an old earth does not (or at least should not) change one's view of God's character, providence, or divine nature. Likewise, an old earth does not threaten the core doctrines of Christian theology or the gospel message. The theological foundation of the Genesis creation account is that God created the universe. The particulars of how and when he created remain open to discussion. The most important thing to remember is that it was God who created.