Scripture that Young Earth Creationists Must Avoid

earthThe elephant in the room that young earth creationists willfully avoid is that the creation of the planet earth is not within the week of days described in Genesis 1.  The earth is created during an unspecified period of time “in the beginning” (Gen1:1). The earth is present in its primordial state (Gen 1:2) before God declares “let their be light” which begins the creation week (Gen 1:4). The text is clear that the week did not ensue until after the declaration of light (Gen 1:5). So when was the earth created and how long did it take? Genesis does not say but the book of Job describes the process:

“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”(Job 38:4–7)

God is questioning Job and challenging him for his impertinence. He describes a process of measuring and building the earth but, even more, the morning stars (angels) are present singing. Angels are created beings (Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16; Psalm 148:5), who according to this passage were created before the earth.  At minimum, we can derive a significant period of time during which the angels were created and developed worship practices. After all, they are singing as the earth is made. This logic seems unassailable.

Thus, the facile practice of adding up the genealogies plus seven days is sorely mistaken. It is not consistent with the whole counsel of God and should be abandoned by thinking Christians, not on the basis of natural revelation (science) alone but on the basis of its inconsistency with divine relation (scripture).  Unfortunately, it has become a traditional stronghold that unnecessarily discredits the church’s outreach.

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.


  1. Steven Lynch says:

    Wow. Never knew William Lane Craig was such an {SNIP obscenity is not tolerated}

    While I have my own difficulties with little blue haired ol’ ladies that shut down the discussion of Creation in church by saying “Welll I just BE-LEEVE!!!!”, Craig’s admonishment style … is far more … distressing.

    • Laura says:

      Agreeing with you Steven Lynch.

    • Barry says:

      Amen! I may be wrong but I don’t think he even has to work at it. Must be Natural selection at work to produce on as big as him.

  2. I am not a YEC, but I don’t see the logic in your argument. If the angels were created before the earth, as the Bible states, are we really changing anything by acknowledging that?
    The 1) Universe was created, 2)the angels were created, 3) the earth was created. One can swap 1+2 without changing that the earth could be young.
    I agree that the angels had time to create worship practices, but what did they need to do that? The Bible does not answer that.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      William – YEC add up the genealogies plus 7 days and posit the age of the earth. The logic is crystal clear. 1) there is no “day” in Genesis one involving the creation of the earth or angels (simply ‘in the beginning’) the earth is simply assumed before the first day (Gen 1:2). 2) Job 38 describes a process of making the earth with angels present; 3) Therefore, there was indeterminate amount of time involving the creation of the angels and earth prior to “let there be light” inaugurating the first day. Therefore, the practice of adding 7 days to the genealogies is unsound.

      • From the WL Craig video, some majority of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Archbishop Ussher added up the dates, leaving the universe about 6,000 years old.

        This means there is wiggle room where people can believe in YE creationism but disagree with Ussher.

        If YE creationism is simple adding seven days to Ussher’s genealogy, that does not make your logic “crystal clear.”

        There are many schools of thought that still leave the earth “young.”

  3. Johnny says:

    The fact is time is not “flowing” the same everywhere in the universe nor was it the same as today in the past. From the observation at the point of creation it is six days. From the present looking into the past, it is 15 billions years. (This is not the Gap theory)
    The rate of time flowing within the universe, in general. is inversely proportional to the size of the universe. It is an exponential rate of decrease having been much faster in the past.
    Here ya go, John McMahon!:
    John McMahon, here is the short version you might have been thinking of:

    Depending on the observer’s frame of reference both the YEC and OEC are right. Problem solved. Thank you all, good night, and may Yehoshua bless you all wonderfully! 🙂

  4. Charles says:

    I Believe the fallen nature of the visible creation is approximately 6,000 years . Genesis Chapter 1: God createth Heaven and Earth, and all things therein, in six days. Here, God reveals Truth in Scripture. {snip — make a point, do not cut and paste large blocks of text}

  5. louthesaint says:

    Jesus said; “Among those born of Women there is none arisen (anyone) greater than John the baptist”

    Mary was born of a sinful woman as all others….

    The Baptist according to Jesus is greater than His Mother Mary!

    It seems that the ‘catechism’ is incorrect and in contradiction to the words of Jesus..

    • Charles says:

      There are two places in the New Testament where we read about this: about John the baptist. Matthew 11: {11} Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. Also Luke 7: {28} For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John, the Baptist: but he who is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he. Here is catholic commentary on this – There hath not risen … a greater, &c. This comparison, by what we find, Luke vii. 28, is only betwixt John and the ancient prophets, to signify that John was greater than any of the prophets, at least by his office of being the immediate precursor of the Messias. The comparison cannot be extended to Christ himself, who was both God and man, nor to his blessed Virgin Mother; nor need we understand it of his apostles. (Witham) God Bless… And let us all remember this Sunday is our christian celebration of Pentecost… This year all christian’s (catholic, orthodox, and protestants) will celebrate Pentecost on June 8. Again God Bless…

  6. Alfred says:

    Why is it that non-scientists always always make judgements about how science proves an old earth. Did Dr. Lane look in depth into the evidences for a young Earth and the inconsistencies of evolution and an old earth? It seems philosophers, seminarians and the like, always make scientific judgements when they should stick to upholding what they spend many years studying, the Word of God. Why does a seminary graduate questioning what is written in the Bible that they study for years and years. A seminary graduate should uphold the authority and validity of God’s word more than anybody else. What gives them the authority or knowledge to question Genesis? How about if they question the Virgin birth which is unobservable today.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      God’s word says nothing at all about the age of the earth. That is simply the work of Bishop Usher who added the genealogies to 7 days and exercise wrought with error because the genealogies are not chronologies, the Hebrew translated “father” can also mean “descended from” (skipping many generations) and some the names are nations not individuals. The Bible does not date creation.

      • Chuckles says:

        Well, there’s this…

        Exodus 20:11

        Also, the translation of the Hebrew for “father” is irrelevant. The genealogies use the pattern “so-and-so lived ‘x’ number of years and begat whoever” , so the lengths of time between a given person’s birth and the next descendant’s birth is spelled out clearly.

  7. Troy Butler says:

    Hello Chris,
    I have enjoyed your work for some time. I would like to know how Exodus 20:11 ought to be interpreted? I feel a straight forward reading of the text in light of the preceding verse gives YEC’s scriptural support. I don’t know enough to hold any view with confidence, so i’m more interested in what has stronger footing in Scripture.

    • Chuckles says:


      Hey there, Troy!

      Looks like we’re on a similar wavelength. Wish I’d read your post before making a redundant one about Exodus 20:11.

  8. Megan says:

    I can see from scripture and from your post how there was a form of Earth “in the beginning.” However, why could that time period of God creating the primordial form of Earth not also be a very short period of time? He is capable of creating it in a very short amount of time, is He not? It takes a man years to grow to maturity, yet God created “man,” not a baby, in one day. He can do anything. So, why would the old Earth theory have to be correct? It seems to me that you are just assuming what you will since the Bible does not say at all how long that initial period of time was. Who are we to assume? I think the text in which God replies to Job;

    “Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”(Job 38:4–7)

    …Could just as well be a reply to any and all who assume what is not clearly spoken of in Scripture regarding the formation of Earth. It seems very bold to me for anyone to declare how long of a time, or short, it took God to manifest the Earth before the Creation week. Who are we to make such claims? Science “proves” an old Earth, but it also “proves” evolution of mankind from primates. This kind of thing seems to stem from the conceit of man becaucause we think we are so knowledgeable these days with all of our science, that we can stake a claim on how long it took Him to create before the Creation week. We know nothing more than what Job knew so long ago about that amount of time “in the beginning,” even with the science of today. As God said to job, ‘Where were you at my laying the foundation of the Earth?’ No human was there and we have no record in detail of the time span of the event.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      “It seems very bold to me for anyone to declare how long of a time, or short,”

      Exactly, so no one should assume it was a short period and make dubious claims about the young age of the earth either. The Bible does not say, so it is a question of science not theology.

      • Megan says:

        I tried to reply directly to your comment but ended up doing a general reply to your post somehow.

  9. jaz says:

    These verses of scripture indicate that there was no earth until such time as God spoke it into existence.

    “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the ‘Breath of His mouth’ all their hosts” Psalms33:6

    “For he spoke and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast” Psalms33:9

  10. Mike Pincher says:

    Truly one of the stupidest articles I’ve ever read. Evening and morning are 24-hour periods, and to say the earth was in a primordial state for an indefinite period is ridiculous and not at all consistent with good hermeneutics or a straightforward reading of Scripture. Did you expect the Creator to tell you how He did it cell by cell, molecule by molecule. Christ Himself said Adam and Eve were created “in the beginning,” which would make no sense if there was an indeterminate time between earth’s “primordial state” and the commencement of creation week. It doesn’t even make sense that God would equivocate on such an issue. Likewise, Exodus 20:11 wasn’t even broached. This article really is an insult to the intelligence.

    • Mike Pincher says:

      I would add that I was referring to Mark 10:6 as to Christ’s comment on the creation of Adam and Eve (male and female). Ussher was perfectly proper to use the genealogies to determine the age of the earth and the way the genealogy goes, that kind of calculation would be anticipated and expected to be made.

      This is not a matter for that biased science which is better expressed as “evolutionary science.” The radiometric dating systems are all seriously flawed and have been shown to be on a number of occasions.

    • Patrick says:

      Well stated. The one-sided argument method has gone on long enough. Let’s discuss this using the WHOLE of Scripture as the source. Reason and faith go hand in hand, but when you muddy it up with outside influences, you’re out to lunch very quickly.

    • David Lowe says:

      I’ve got to agree with Mike Pincher.

      First, Exodus 20:11, where God himself tells us how long it took to create both the heavens and the earth, which was 6 days:

      For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day;

      Second, Genesis 1:2, where Moses recorded the first day of creation (see Exodus 20:11 above) took an evening and a morning:

      There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

      Third, Genesis 2:1-2, where Moses again recorded that God’s act of creating both the heavens and the earth was completed in the first six days:

      The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing.


    • StoneDragon says:

      In the beginning of what, Mike? Of the saga of the creation as we know it, with us in it? Of the history of how God proceeded to make a reality for we humans? Or are you thinking its the beginning of God Himself? Which makes creation as we know it frightfully older than 6K years….

      Why is it stupid to allow that God has probably been up to lots more than we’ve been given to know about? And that possibly, our literal 6 day creation home, which He probably did about 6-8 thousand years ago, isn’t the only thing He’s done, or that the materials He used hadn’t already been Made before that time? Was God in some total vacuum before He started at In The Begining of the Bible?

      Maybe… our 6-day created, evolution-free existence with flowers and giraffes is even… drum roll… a palimpsest. GASP!! SHOCK HORROR!!!

  11. Megan says:

    You have a point there. However, I think my belief in a young earth is in line with scripture. My main point was this: it does not seem logical for God to initially create over a long period of time and then change to a final incredibly fast creation process of six days. I think we have to follow scripture wherein we only see a young earth and a fast creation of God. As we know, God does not change. So, if there was some sort of primordial earth (and I can see how there seems to be a form of something in Gen 1:2), I do not see any real proof of an old earth and a slow creation over thousands, millions, or billions of years.

    Moreover, radiocarbon dating, which supposedly proves an old Earth, has been proven to be faulty. I’m curious what your thoughts are on all the proof of a young Earth at

    I was pushed to post here because I was surprised, after following and respecting your work, to see your view of an old Earth. I should have kept my peace because I do not seek to debate, and since it’s not a matter of salvation I shouldn’t really care what you think about Creation. I already know you’re saved by the blood of Jesus!

  12. StoneDragon says:

    Its been my observation that YEC people defend the position in what appears to be near-panic. And conversation inevitably reveals why- they appear to think the only alternative is to allow in the notion of evolution.

    And its not either/or. Its quite interesting to consider how God might have gone about things, fit what we are given to know in the Bible into what we understand about our reality. Its not that scary. And for pete’s sake, trust the Spirit to protect you while you think a little.

    God’s been around for… oh, infinity. So you think He’s just been twiddling His Thumbs till 6K years ago, then bam, He makes everything we can observe, and ain’t we the bees knees? We’re His raison d’être e, aye? Piffle.

    An artist has many materials sitting around in a studio, and they might sit there with a future plan in the mind of the artist for ages and ages, before the artist says “Its time to do…. this!” Why can’t God have been up to whatever God does with infinity, including having made our universe and our ball of rock, INSTANTLY, not via that scary evolutionary notion (though if He wanted to do something via evolution, for the fun of it, He certainly is able to iff’n He wants to, its just that for what WE know, He did it in a literal 6 days because He tells us He did, and I don’t think within the framework of our reality, evolution can actually function, so don’t get all exorcised about the notion), and then left it as-is till He felt it was time to come back and do what He wanted with it? Meanwhile, doing whatever wherever it is He does?

    Why can’t it be that only we, in the reality He formed for us, experience linear time? He is infinite. He laid time for US, but that doesn’t make Him subject to His own creation. Creation as we know it is done as He said He did- 6 days. And if He had raw material in this studio before He decided to make it with us in it in this present plan and form? So what? Why does that disturb YEC people so much to consider?

    • Paul says:

      …its just that for what WE know, He did it in a literal 6 days because He tells us He did, and I don’t think within the framework of our reality, evolution can actually function

      Indeed it can’t. Evolution (in the sense of molecules-to-man, or even apes-to-man) is bunk: that’s the main thing to draw from Genesis 1 (and borne out amply by the findings of microbiology). As for arguments about how old the Earth & Cosmos actually are, that’s really a separate issue. It grieves me that Young-Earth Creationists seem bent on lashing belief in an old Earth/Cosmos to belief in evolution, when it’s perfectly possible to separate the two. I’m not doggedly committed to Old- or Young-Earth Creationism — I simply accept that as far as we are concerned, God created us in six days without recourse to evolution. Scripture is clear on that.

      so don’t get all exorcised about the notion

      …Sometimes I think that certain commentators might benefit from getting exorcised. 😉

      • Chuckles says:

        Paul said:

        Young-Earth Creationists seem bent on lashing belief in an old Earth/Cosmos to belief in evolution

        Actually, from the beginning of the controversy it has been evolutionists who insist on “lashing belief in an old Earth/Cosmos to belief in evolution”. That is because the notion of the universe existing for eons is absolutely essential to maintain an evolutionary scenario. That is also why evolutionst estimates for the age of the universe have gone from “millions of years” to “billions of years” since it has been demonstrated mathematically that the universe could not have “evolved” in the allotted time. The universe is always–upon closer examination–found to be far more complex than initially thought, and so the time necessary for it to “evolve” continues to increase. Now, it’s “billy-uns and billy-uns” of years. (Thank you, Carl Sagan.)

        Now some with (hopefully) a biblical outlook would say, “Well, those billy-uns of years don’t have anything to do with the creation.” But they do, because the ultimate age of the earth/universe is a time-oriented issue. The supposed “scientific evidence” for an old universe is time based. It won’t do to suppose that “evidence” for a purported long age of the earth or universe has nothing to do with things post fall-of-Adam, or that such “evidence” piled up before Genesis 1:3. All of the “evidence” gathered is taken from the present post-fall universe. Such “evidence” could tell us nothing about any pre-fall world, even if such a world did exist. Therefore, all of the evolutionist’s conclusions from “evidence” of long earth ages is purely speculative at best, being based on an invalid assumption from the get-go. AND, the misinformed Christian–intimidated by “science”, seeking to reconcile the Bible with a completely invalid secular theory (in the name of “sensible Christianity”, of course)–ends up on sinking sand biblically and scientifically.

        Since evolutionists are so prone to ignore their own imprisonment to this “present evil age”, (willfully blind in many cases) why should their theories be taken at face value? Why should we assume that they are so infallible, so objective, so immune to the well-known human tendency to “spin the data” to support their theories, especially when we (Christians) know full well that such theories were invented to explain away God?

        Btw, another factor which motivates evolutionist “research” is the vast monetary benefit to be received by un-earthing any data supposedly “proving” evolution. Huge corporations, as well as foundations private and governmental are deeply involved in the so-called “scientific” search for an explanation of our origins. Money not only talks, it seeks to silence opposition.

        YECs are a serious threat to evolutionary hegemony, and so YEC scientists are vilified by evolutionists with any major stake in the popular evolutionary paradigm. What is so disturbing to a YEC is to see Christians buying into evolutionary myths. There are good scientific sources. I thank God for scientific organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research. They are scientists with a biblical outlook who refuse to bow to institutional intimidation, who refuse to feed at government or corporate troughs. They are in a much better position to be thorough and objective about scientific observation.

        Rather than throwing YECs under the bus, Cris should check into ICR material. They can answer his objections from a thoroughly scientific standpoint.

  13. Charles says:

    According to a recent science article. The Earth May Be 60 Million Years Older Than Thought. New research shows that the timing of the giant impact between Earth’s ancestor and a planet-sized body occurred around 40 million years after the start of solar system formation.
    The research indicates that the Earth and moon are 60 million years older than previously estimated.

    The violent collision scientists believe created the moon and gave Earth its current form occurred just 40 million years after the solar system formed some 4.5 billion years ago.
    Scientists had previously estimated that the Earth and the moon had formed 100 million years after the solar system’s formation. Here’s my response to “The Earth May Be 60 Million Years Older Than Thought”. “Wanna bet it’s 4,439,994,000 younger” Notice any thing odd about this new number. 4439994000 – 666 is in the number upside down. God Bless…