It’s become increasingly common—even in conservative Christian circles—to hear believers say something like, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but I don’t think Genesis has to be taken literally.” Often what follows is an attempt to accommodate secular interpretations of earth history—whether that’s through day-age theories, gap theories, or theistic evolution.
But here’s the problem: If we really believe the Bible is inerrant, we can’t just reinterpret the plain meaning of the text whenever it conflicts with popular scientific consensus.
Genesis clearly teaches that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh (Genesis 1–2), and those days are defined with “evening and morning”—a natural day. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 provide an unbroken timeline from Adam to Abraham. When taken at face value—as Jesus and the apostles did—Scripture points to an earth that is thousands, not billions, of years old.
To suggest otherwise undermines the very doctrine of inerrancy we claim to uphold. It introduces doubt about what God meant, about what is history and what is poetry, and about whether the Bible speaks clearly at all. It also raises questions: If Genesis doesn’t mean what it says, what else in Scripture is open to reinterpretation?
The issue isn’t simply about the age of the earth. It’s about the authority of Scripture. Do we let God’s Word speak plainly, or do we filter it through the lens of human reasoning?
I highly recommend watching the following video of debate between Hugh Ross and Terry Mortensen which addresses this question with clarity and conviction:
As for me, I’m convicted that we must stand on the whole counsel of God—starting from the very first verse.
