Young Earth

The 6,000-year chronology comes from adding genealogies, and conflicts with every independent dating method.

6 min readUpdated

Young-earth creationism holds that the universe is roughly 6,000 years old, that creation took six ordinary days, and that a global flood around 2350 BCE produced most of the geological record.

The 6,000-year figure is not stated in the Bible. It is calculated by adding the ages in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 to the dated events of later Israelite history.

Where the number comes from

James Ussher's Annales Veteris Testamenti (1650) produced the best-known chronology, placing creation at the evening preceding 23 October 4004 BCE. His method:

Step Source
Creation to the flood Genesis 5 — ten generations with ages at fatherhood, totalling 1,656 years
Flood to Abraham Genesis 11:10-26 — nine generations
Abraham to the exodus Exodus 12:40 — 430 years in Egypt
Exodus to the temple 1 Kings 6:1 — 480 years
Temple to the exile Regnal years in Kings and Chronicles
Exile onward Anchored to Babylonian and Persian records

Ussher was a careful scholar working with the sources available to him, and the arithmetic is sound given his assumptions. The assumptions are that the genealogies are complete and that the numbers are chronological.

Other chronologies from the same method differ. The Septuagint's figures for Genesis 5 and 11 are larger than the Masoretic Text's, giving roughly 5500 BCE; the Samaritan Pentateuch gives a third set. Josephus, Bede, and Kepler each produced different dates. The three manuscript traditions disagree by more than a thousand years on the same calculation.

What the model claims

Claim Textual basis
Creation in six ordinary days Genesis 1; yom with a number and with "evening and morning"
Roughly 6,000 years since creation Genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, summed forward
No death before the fall Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
A global flood around 2350 BCE Genesis 7-8
Present diversity descends from the animals on the ark Genesis 6:19-20

The no-death-before-the-fall claim is doing more work than it first appears. It is the reason the fossil record cannot be accommodated by reading the days as long periods: fossils are dead things, so on this reading they must all postdate the fall, which places nearly the entire geological record in the flood year or after.

Where the physical evidence is examined

This page covers what the text says and how the chronology is derived. The dating evidence is set out in its own articles:

Common objections

"The genealogies are complete, so the arithmetic holds"

The genealogies do give ages at fatherhood, which is what makes the calculation possible at all — most biblical genealogies do not.

Biblical genealogies elsewhere demonstrably skip generations. Matthew 1:8 has Joram fathering Uzziah, omitting three kings named in 1 Chronicles 3:11-12. The Hebrew verb translated "fathered" can mean "became the ancestor of."

Whether Genesis 5 and 11 do this is disputed among conservative scholars, and B. B. Warfield argued in 1911 that they leave the age of humanity open.

The stronger difficulty is the manuscript variation. The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch give different figures for the same generations. The method cannot produce a single date because the sources do not agree.

"'Day' in Genesis 1 means a literal 24-hour day"

The most defensible part of the young-earth reading, as an exegetical matter. Yom with a number and with "evening and morning" ordinarily denotes an ordinary day in Hebrew, and day-age readings do strain the usage.

Accepting it does not settle the age of the earth. It establishes what the author meant, which is the question of what the text says rather than what happened.

The alternatives — the framework view, the analogical day view, John Walton's functional-origins reading — are attempts to reconcile the text with the physical evidence. The evidence itself is unaffected by which reading of yom is correct.

"God created the world with apparent age, as Adam was created adult"

Philip Gosse's Omphalos (1857) is the classic statement. The proposal is internally consistent and cannot be refuted by evidence, which is its principal difficulty.

It also has a specific consequence. Tree rings record particular droughts, ice layers record particular volcanic eruptions matched chemically to known volcanoes, and light from SN 1987A carries a detailed record of a star exploding 168,000 light years away. Apparent age here means not merely mature creation but a detailed record of events that never occurred.

Gosse's own contemporaries, including Christian ones, rejected the book largely on that ground.

"A young earth is the plain reading — old-earth views are accommodation to science"

Largely accurate as a historical claim about the last two centuries. Day-age readings, the gap theory, and the framework view were developed or popularised after geology established an old earth, and were motivated in part by it.

The plain-reading claim is weaker for the pre-modern period than it is often taken to be. Augustine argued in The Literal Meaning of Genesis that the days were not ordinary days, on exegetical grounds and centuries before any geological pressure. Origen read the early chapters figuratively. Ussher's chronology was one of many, and the manuscript traditions it depends on disagree.

Young-earth creationism in its modern form is itself recent. It dates largely from George McCready Price and, decisively, from Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood (1961); before that, old-earth readings were common among conservative Protestants, including at Princeton.

What the text supports

The 6,000-year figure is not stated in scripture. It is produced by summing genealogies, and the three main manuscript traditions give sums differing by more than a thousand years — so the method does not yield a determinate date on its own terms.

The six-day reading of Genesis 1 is defensible as exegesis, and probably the most natural reading of yom in that context. That is a conclusion about what the author meant, which is a separate question from what happened.

Whether the physical world matches the resulting chronology is examined in the dating and geology articles linked above.