Scoffers and Young Earth Creationism

 

“We constantly hear from those who scoff at what we do at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Encounter. They hate the message. Now, we should not be surprised that so many unbelievers scoff when we stand up for God’s Word because “men [love] darkness rather than light” (John 3:19).  

 

“In 2 Peter we’re warned that in the last days (since God’s Son became a man) there’d be scoffers mocking those who stand on the truth of God’s Word. 

“‘Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water (2 Peter 3:3-6).’ 

“This passage tells us that scoffers in the last days will reject creation and Noah’s Flood—we certainly see that today with scoffers of the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. These scoffers ‘willingly forget’ the truths of the history of God’s Word—they deliberately reject the truth despite obvious evidence. 

“But, in this same passage, God’s Word reminds us that He is long-suffering toward scoffers and not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9)—a reminder to pray for scoffers. Will you join us in praying for those who mock and scoff, that they will come to know the truth of God’s Word and the gospel?” 

~ Ken Ham, Jan. 17, 2016
“Scoffers and the Last Days”
Accessed 2/25/2025 (1)

According to Ken Ham and many other Young Earth Creationist (YEC) proponents, the “scoffers” mentioned in 2 Peter 3 are those living in the post-ascension era who “reject creation and Noah’s Flood.” Whether intentional or not, this interpretation extends the category of “scoffers” to include Christians who diverge from the broader YEC definition of “creation” (as detailed in the previously cited source). For example, individuals who accept the extensive scientific evidence for an ancient cosmos or biological evolution, or who interpret the Flood narrative as describing a regional rather than global event—or who disagree with any element of the Answers in Genesis (AiG) formulation—are viewed as “scoffers” who willingly forget the “true history” of the world revealed in God’s Word.

This framing lends particular weight to Mr. Ham’s subsequent exhortation:

“…in this same passage, God’s Word reminds us that He is long-suffering toward scoffers and not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9)—a reminder to pray for scoffers. Will you join us in praying for those who mock and scoff, that they will come to know the truth of God’s Word and the gospel?”

Given that Ham’s usage of “scoffer” appears to include Christians who do not affirm the YEC position, the implication is that such individuals are considered under God’s judgment. His appeal that readers pray for these individuals “that they will come to know the truth of God’s Word and the gospel” suggests a soteriological concern—that those who reject AiG’s interpretation of Genesis 1–11 are either unsaved, deceived, or spiritually deficient.

But does 2 Peter 3 support this interpretation?

The passage reads:

“Dear friends, this is now the second letter I have written to you; in both letters, I want to stir up your sincere understanding by way of reminder, so that you recall the words previously spoken by the holy prophets and the command of our Lord and Savior given through your apostles. Above all, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days scoffing and following their own evil desires, saying, ‘Where is his ‘coming’ that he promised? Ever since our ancestors fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation.’ They deliberately overlook this: By the word of God the heavens came into being long ago and the earth was brought about from water and through water. Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded. By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

“Dear friends, don’t overlook this one fact: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed.”

~ 2 Peter 3:1-10 (CSB)

When examined in its immediate literary and historical context, 2 Peter 3:3–6 and 3:9 do not appear to affirm the claim advanced by Mr. Ham and other YEC teachers. For instance, verse 4 depicts the scoffers as saying: “Ever since our ancestors fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation (ktisis [κτίσις]).” This statement presupposes belief in a created order rather than denial of creation per se. Such a view aligns with the supernatural cosmology of the ancient world; philosophical naturalism was not a prevailing concern in the first-century Greco-Roman context. Thus, the claim that the scoffers “reject creation” is not borne out by the text itself.

Moreover, what precisely are the scoffers rejecting? Verse 4 indicates their central objection is to the promised return of Christ: “Where is his [Jesus’] coming that he promised?” Their skepticism targets eschatological fulfillment, not the Genesis creation or Flood narratives. In this context, the mention of creation and the Flood in verses 5–6 functions theologically rather than polemically. The Flood is referenced as a paradigmatic act of divine judgment—a typological parallel to the coming eschatological judgment described in verse 7: “By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire…”

The primary concern of the passage is not to defend a particular interpretation of Genesis, but to affirm God’s authority as both Creator and Judge. The reference to the Flood in 2 Peter 3:5–6 functions not as a rebuttal of those who question the historicity or global extent of the deluge, but as a theological example of divine judgment. As described in Genesis 6:11–13, the Flood represents God’s response to widespread human wickedness—a point Peter echoes to highlight the danger of ignoring God’s past and future acts of justice (see also 2 Peter 2:1–10).

In conclusion, 2 Peter 3:1–10 teaches that, in the period between Christ’s ascension and return, there will be individuals who mock the promise of His return, refusing to acknowledge that divine judgment is both a historical reality and a future certainty. The passage calls believers to perseverance, holiness, and hope in light of God’s patience and impending justice.

As the chapter closes, Peter exhorts his readers not only to anticipate the “day of the Lord” with sobriety but also to guard against theological distortion and grow in grace. May we all take heed:

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness as you wait for the day of God and hasten its coming. Because of that day, the heavens will be dissolved with fire and the elements will melt with heat. But based on his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

“Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found without spot or blemish in his sight, at peace. Also, regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

“Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own stable position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity.”

~ 2 Peter 3:10-18 (CSB)

See Also:

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis: The word of Fallible Man or the Authority of God's Word?

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis: The Word of Fallible Man or the Authority of God's Word?

"Obviously what I’m saying to you is, what the church is doing is taking outside ideas [i.e., man’s word], adding to Scriptures.... It’s undermining biblical authority."

~ Ken Ham

"Stop Trusting Man's Word: Genesis and Compromise"

[DVD] (1:12:59)

Also Ken Ham (emphasis mine):

"I’ve told people that really the ministry of Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, and Creation Museum—that impacts tens of millions of people directly and tens of millions more indirectly each year—is a legacy of parents who taught their children to stand boldly and uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God.

What legacy will you leave for your children?

'A good man leaves an inheritance [legacy] to his children’s children' (Proverbs 13:22 ESV)."

~ Ken Ham

October 26, 2023

God's Word:

"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous."

~ Proverbs 13:22 (ESV)

Here, Mr. Ham presents a modified version of Proverbs 13:22 by omitting part of the original text and introducing the term "legacy" alongside the Hebrew word yan·ḥîl (יַנְחִ֥יל), which means inheritance or possessions. He has shared this interpretation across several platforms, including the Answers in Genesis website (A Father's Legacy), on (Facebook) and in a prominent plaque displayed above his father’s Bible at the Creation Museum’s Ham Family Legacy exhibit (refer to the associated photo montage in the article).

It is interesting to note that there are several other passages—such as Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Proverbs 22:6, Psalm 78:1-4 and 2 Timothy 1:5—that could also support the idea of raising children in a way that leaves a legacy of faith. This naturally raises the question of why Proverbs 13:22 was chosen to emphasize this message over other texts that might seem to address the concept even more directly.
Initially, this instance appeared to be isolated, but further exploration has revealed additional examples in which Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis present Scripture in a way that aligns with their interpretative approach.

"As soon as you allow the world’s interpretations, beliefs, fads, and philosophies to be your standard, true biblical unity is impossible. And those who still start with and believe God’s Word must leave for the health of their congregations.

'For there must be factions [divisions] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.' (1 Corinthians 11:19)"

~ Ken Ham

"Can Division in the Church Be a Good Thing?"

Feb. 12, 2024

"... I encourage people, you need to go back and make sure you're trying to impact your church and your leaders to get them to see this [AiG's interpretation of Genesis 1-11] and use guerrilla warfare if you need. Invite people to your home and show videos and do studies there, because a lot of people tell us their pastors don't want this material in their churches because they're worried about division, right?

"I've had conservative pastors tell me I don't want to teach Genesis 1 to11 like you do and that's because it'll create division and I just don't want to create division, you know? Does the Bible say division is bad? It doesn't, actually.

"I know it talks about unity, but also Paul talks about division and that there has to be division to show who's approved of God, he says in Corinthians [1 Corinthians 11:19]. And so, as I say to people, when you shine light in darkness, if you're not creating division for the right reasons, the right sort of division, you need to ask yourself, 'What are you doing?' If pastors are not creating the right sort of division for the right reasons, then what are you doing? Right? Because light is going to create division and it should.”

~ Ken Ham

My Faith Votes Interview

Aug. 16, 2022

Here, Mr. Ham once again adjusts the presentation of Scripture by adding his own commentary—indicated by brackets—to direct the passage toward a particular interpretation. This approach results in a reading that some might feel deviates from the meaning emphasized by the verse’s full, contextual setting.

"But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."

~ 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 (ESV) [emphasis added]

Paul does not indicate that divisions are necessary to demonstrate genuine approval by God. In the preceding verse, he even criticizes the Corinthians for such divisions (schismata [σχίσματα]). It appears that Mr. Ham has introduced the term "division(s)" in the English translation to emphasize a particular perspective.

The Greek word translated as "factions" in the ESV—haireseis (αἱρέσεις)—carries meanings that include a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect (sometimes implying heresy), discord, or contention.

Rather than praising the Corinthians for having divisions in their church, Paul addresses this topic directly in 1 Corinthians 1:10-14, where he clearly instructs that the church should not be split into different camps over secondary matters (in this case, allegiance to various teachers), but should remain united in Christ. Additionally, Paul uses the common eschatological term dokimoi (δόκιμοι)– translated as "approved" – to describe those who are genuine in their faith, implying that 1 Corinthians 11:19 can be understood as an example of both Pauline sarcasm and eschatological commentary. Regardless, the context does not imply that divisions within the church are beneficial; rather, it seems to convey a note of caution regarding the Corinthians' behavior in this instance.

A key aspect of understanding these verses is focusing on the phrase "in the church." There is a natural distinction between the church—which represents the Kingdom of God—and the world. As Jesus remarks in Luke 12:51-53, such distinctions exist, but it is important to recognize that the church and the world are not the same. Likewise, just as sheep differ from goats (Matthew 25:31-46) and bad trees cannot bear good fruit (Matthew 7:15-20), the spiritual quality of believers cannot be measured by divisions over secondary issues.

Furthermore, while some within the congregation may not be fully united with Christ, it is ultimately God who will differentiate between genuine believers and those who are not, as seen in passages like Revelation 20:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 3:10-17. The true measure of faith rests on one’s response to the Gospel—being known by Christ and having one's name written in the Book of Life—rather than on personal preferences or interpretations regarding secondary matters.

Mr. Ham, and by extension Answers in Genesis, also interprets 1 Corinthians 11:19 in a way that suggests promoting division over what are seen as "the right things." In this context, he often refers specifically to his interpretation of Genesis 1–11 along with a few other selected prooftexts from Scripture.

While I agree with Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis that Christians should neither celebrate nor tolerate sin within the Church (as clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 5) and that unity in Christ excludes those who deny or undermine essential Christian doctrines, I take a different view on the creation versus evolution debate. I do not believe that generating divisions over this topic is truly reflective of a division made for "the right reasons." In fact, several passages (such as Proverbs 6:16-19, Titus 3:9 and Romans 16:17-18) seem to caution against causing separations over secondary or tertiary issues.

In a more recent instance, Mr. Ham cited 1 Corinthians 14:8 on social media (Facebook, February 26th, 2025, February 27th, 2025) to advocate for unity in his interpretation and presentation of Genesis 1–11, urging his followers to meditate on the meaning of the verse. However, this verse primarily addresses the use of the gift of tongues rather than issues related to Genesis 1–11. Additionally, verse 12 of the same chapter emphasizes the importance of building up the church, which appears to contrast with the idea of creating divisions over interpretative differences.

"Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy. For the person who speaks in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God, since no one understands him; he speaks mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the person who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation. The person who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. I wish all of you spoke in tongues, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up.

"So now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you with a revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? Even lifeless instruments that produce sounds—whether flute or harp—if they don’t make a distinction in the notes, how will what is played on the flute or harp be recognized? In fact, if the bugle makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle? In the same way, unless you use your tongue for intelligible speech, how will what is spoken be known? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different kinds of languages in the world, none is without meaning. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker will be a foreigner to me. So also you—since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, seek to excel in building up the church."

~ 1 Corinthians 14:1-12 (CSB) [emphasis added]

But perhaps the most striking statements from Answers in Genesis are found in the article How Do I Stay Humble When I Know I'm Right?. Here, they claim that the "real difference" between a young earth creationist and someone like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Holy Spirit and that young earth creationists know the earth is young because the Holy Spirit has revealed this truth to them. This language can be interpreted as suggesting that young earh creationists have access to a distinct form of spiritual insight that is otherwise withheld from the uninitiated.

There is also an implication that those who do not support the young earh view might not have the Holy Spirit—a point that, if one follows the logic of Romans 8:9, could be seen as indicating that non-YECs are not saved. Additionally, the article cites 1 Corinthians 2:14 to support the idea that those who disagree with the young earh interpretation might be less capable of understanding the world without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many readers may find this interpretation to be a stretch or a perspective that warrants further discussion.

First of all, it's important to note that Paul could have chosen any number of words when explaining that the natural man (those without the Holy Spirit) does not receive the things of God. Rather than using the more general term lambanó (λαμβάνω), which can mean "to take" in many senses, Paul deliberately opts for dechomai (δέχομαι). This term suggests the acceptance of a specifically requested offering, indicating not that the natural man is incapable of understanding Scripture or engaging with science, but that he consciously chooses not to accept the message of God's Word.

Similarly, when Paul uses the term rendered as "foolishness" (mória [μωρία]) in 1 Corinthians 3:19 ("For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God…"), he is not implying that God cannot comprehend worldly wisdom. Rather, Paul is emphasizing that God rejects the wisdom of the world because it does not reflect the truth. This again is a matter of intentional acceptance rather than a question of intellectual ability, and it does not directly relate to our capacity to understand the natural world through science.

With this understanding of the Greek in mind, consider 1 Corinthians 2:14. When Paul explains that "the person without the Spirit does not receive (or is unable to know) what comes from God" because it is "evaluated (appraised) spiritually," he is highlighting that an unbeliever may well understand Scripture intellectually or grasp empirical truths about the natural world, but they may struggle to internalize and live out its spiritual teachings. In other words, the natural man needs the Holy Spirit to fully appreciate and embrace the value of God’s Word; the role of the Spirit is not to enlighten us about scientific mysteries but to help us accept and apply the truth of Scripture.

In summary, if a teacher must remove Scripture from its context or add interpretive commentary in order to direct the meaning toward a specific conclusion, it might be worthwhile to reconsider that approach in light of a balanced and contextually rooted interpretation of God’s Word.

That said, it is concerning that many have observed instances of selective interpretation in the teachings of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Equally notable is the suggestion that their followers may tend to accept these interpretations without critically examining the scriptural basis behind them.

Such trends underscore the importance of ensuring that leaders remain open to scrutiny and accountability. When spiritual teaching becomes too closely tied to personal convictions without room for open discussion, there is a risk that the broader message of Scripture can be narrowed or even distorted. Accountability in leadership helps protect the integrity of the Gospel and ensures that believers are guided by a comprehensive understanding of God’s Word rather than by individual preferences.

While Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis present themselves as committed to upholding the authority of Scripture, the selective use of passages and the emphasis on certain interpretations may give the impression of a narrowly defined message. In light of their public stance and the high regard in which they are held by many, it is crucial for supporters and the wider community to thoughtfully engage with their teachings and hold them accountable. This approach not only fosters a more balanced study of the Bible but also safeguards against the risk of any teaching being elevated beyond constructive critique. 

See Also:

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

Scoffers and young earth Creationism

Is Answers in Genesis a Cult?

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 John 3:16 and 15:18–19 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.