Creation & Origins
How Old Is the Earth?
6,000 years? 4.5 billion? What the Bible actually says — and doesn't say
The Question Everyone's Afraid to Ask
How old is the earth? 6,000 years? 4.5 billion? Here's the thing that might surprise you — there isn't one clean answer, and the Bible isn't trying to give you one.
This question has caused more arguments in youth group than literally any other topic. People get heated. Friendships end. Comment sections turn into war zones. And honestly? Most of the fighting comes from people who think the other side doesn't take God seriously — when that's almost never true.
Here's what we're going to do: lay out what Scripture actually says, explain the two major views, and let you see why serious, Bible-believing Christians land on both sides. No cap — the answer matters less than you think, and the stuff both sides agree on matters way more than you'd expect.
What Genesis Actually Says
📖 Genesis 1:1-5 Let's start with the text itself, because a lot of people argue about Genesis 1 without having actually read it carefully.
The Hebrew word for "day" in is yom. And here's where it gets interesting — yom doesn't only mean a 24-hour day. Depending on context, it can mean a literal day, an age, an era, or an indefinite period of time. Even within Genesis itself, the word gets used in different ways. uses yom to describe the entire creation period as "the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."
Then there's the whole "evening and morning" structure. describes each creation day with "and there was evening and there was morning" — which sounds like literal 24-hour days, right? But here's the thing: the sun doesn't get created until Day 4. So what exactly is marking "evening and morning" for Days 1 through 3? That's not a gotcha — it's a genuine literary question that scholars on both sides grapple with.
The text uses a highly structured, almost poetic framework. Three days of forming (light, sky/sea, land/vegetation), then three parallel days of filling (sun/moon, birds/fish, animals/humans). That kind of literary symmetry suggests the author might be making a theological point about order and purpose, not handing you a lab report.
The 6,000-Year Math
In 1650, Archbishop James Ussher did something wild — he went through the genealogies in Genesis 5 and , added up all the lifespans, cross-referenced them with known historical dates, and calculated that creation happened on October 23, 4004 BC. That puts the earth at roughly 6,000 years old.
And honestly? The math checks out — if you accept the assumptions behind it. Those assumptions are: the genealogies in Genesis have no gaps (every father-son link is direct, no generations skipped), all the numbers are meant to be taken as literal chronological data, and the days of creation are standard 24-hour periods.
A lot of Christians hold this view, and they hold it for real reasons. They argue that the plain reading of the text points to literal days, that "evening and morning" language is concrete and specific, and that Scripture should be taken at face value unless there's a clear reason not to. Young-earth creationists also point to things like the apparent maturity of creation (God made Adam as an adult, not a baby — maybe He made the earth "mature" too) and questions about the assumptions behind radiometric dating.
This isn't an ignorant position. It's a hermeneutical one — a specific way of reading the text that prioritizes literal interpretation. Plenty of brilliant theologians and scientists hold this view sincerely.
The 4.5 Billion-Year View
On the other side, mainstream science puts the earth at approximately 4.54 billion years old. This number comes from multiple independent lines of evidence: radiometric dating of rocks and meteorites, the fossil record showing life developing over vast periods, the speed of light and the observable size of the universe, and cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang.
Many Christians — including serious, conservative, Bible-believing theologians — accept an old earth without feeling like they're compromising on Scripture. They argue that Genesis 1 was never meant to be a scientific textbook. It's ancient cosmology written to make a theological claim to an audience that didn't have (or need) modern physics.
There are several ways old-earth Christians read . Day-age theory says each "day" represents a long geological epoch — which tracks with how yom can be used in Hebrew. The framework interpretation reads as a literary structure organized topically, not chronologically — it's telling you WHO created and WHY, not giving you a timestamp. Gap theory suggests a long period between and 1:2. Each of these takes the text seriously; they just read the genre differently.
The key move here is recognizing that taking the Bible seriously and taking it literally aren't always the same thing. When Jesus says "I am the door," nobody thinks He's made of wood. Genre matters.
Why Serious Christians Disagree
Here's what's important: this isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's not "real Christians" vs. "fake Christians." It's a question about how you read Genesis 1 — and that's a hermeneutics question (hermeneutics = how you interpret the text), not a faithfulness question.
Both sides affirm that God created everything. Both sides affirm that the universe exists because God spoke it into being. Both sides believe humans are made in God's image and that creation was intentional, purposeful, and good. Both sides take Scripture seriously as the inspired Word of God.
Where they disagree is on genre. Is historical narrative like 1 Kings? Ancient poetry like the Psalms? Something in between — a theological prologue that uses literary structure to make a point about God's sovereignty over creation?
Some of the most respected evangelical theologians in history have landed on different sides. This has been debated since long before Darwin — early church fathers like Augustine and Origen questioned literal 24-hour days back in the 300s and 400s AD. This isn't a modern compromise. It's an ancient conversation. Fr fr.
The real danger isn't holding either position. The real danger is making your position a litmus test for someone else's faith. If you're young-earth, don't call old-earth Christians heretics. If you're old-earth, don't call young-earth Christians anti-science. Both sides are trying to be faithful to the text. They just read the genre differently.
What Actually Matters
Here's the bottom line. Genesis 1 is making a theological claim, and that claim is absolute:
God made everything. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't random. It wasn't a cosmic oopsie. A personal, intentional, all-powerful God spoke the universe into existence.
Creation was purposeful and good. God didn't just make stuff — He organized it, filled it, and called it good. There's design here. There's intentionality. The universe has meaning because it has a Maker.
Humans are the climax. Out of everything God made — galaxies, oceans, mountains, every species on earth — He made humans in His own image. That's not a throwaway line. That's the whole point. You are not an accident. You are not a random collection of atoms. You bear the image of the Creator of the universe.
Whether that happened in 144 hours or 14 billion years, the theology doesn't change. God is Creator. Creation is intentional. You are made in His image. That's the claim Genesis is making, and it's a claim that should lowkey change how you see everything — yourself, the world, and the God who made it all.
The age of the earth is an interesting question. But "did God make you on purpose?" That's the question that actually matters. And Genesis answers it with a resounding yes. 💯