On a theological stand point this is simple a question of does one believe what the bible says or what mans biased view of science says.
Can you read out of the bible millions of years.?
It is possible to read into the bible millions of years, but reading into any passage what one wants to be there is very poor interpretation.
WM,
It's not a simple question of Bible vs science. The issue is not millions of years vs 6,000 years because I can't find anywhere in the Bible where a figure of millions of years vs thousands of years is stated for the age of creation.
I urge none of us to read our presuppositions into the Bible. However, the Bible is a collection of books that have to be interpreted in context.
This is the evidence Dr Norman Geisler gives to challenge the young earth view. He considers the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The article is titled, '
Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?'
The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View
In order to establish the Young Earth view, one must demonstrate that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the "days" of Genesis are six successive 24-hour days of creation. Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.
Possible Gaps in Genesis
The possibility for gaps in Genesis exists in many places.
(1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).
(2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without an intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it).
(3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory). The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis.
(4) There are also known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that "Joram begat Uzziah." But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missing generations between Joram and Uzziah. Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.
So with both possible and actual demonstrable gaps in Genesis and in the genealogies, the "Closed-Chronology" view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible. And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth view?
Evidence that the "Days" of Genesis May Involve More than Six 24-hour days of Creation
Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the "days" of Genesis are not 6 successive 24-hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth). Consider the following:
(1) First, the word "day" (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24-hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).
(2) The word "day" is also used of a whole 24-hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a "day."
(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word "day" is used of all six days of creation when it looks back over all six days of creation and affirms: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them" (Gen. 2:4).
(4) What is more, on the "seventh day" God "rested" from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6,000-plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).
(5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24-hour day. (a) For example, a numbered series with the word "day" (as in Genesis 1) does not always refer to 24-hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows. (b) Also, "evening and morning" sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14. (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit parallel. Further, since the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11), then why can't the other days be longer too. (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam's sin. It only asserts that "death passed upon all men" because of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals. It only indicates that the whole creation was "subjected to futility" (i.e., to frustration-Rom. 8:20-21).
(6) Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the "days" of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the "days" of Genesis to be six 24-hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation. Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth view, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
(7) The Relative Time view claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicist (in Genesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God's time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.
(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos (1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view the first trees would have had rings in them the day they were created.
If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and a longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars. At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt. In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity as to make it a virtual test for orthodoxy?
Here is an evangelical scholar who believe the Bible is inerrant, Norm Geisler, who cannot support young earth creationism.l
I'll add another factor from Gen 1:2 (NIV): 'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God
was hovering over the waters '. This 'hovering or 'vibrant moving' is not 'brooding'.
There is no indicator in the text for what length of time the Spirit hovered over the waters. So, after the creation of the heavens and earth, it is difficult to know the time frame as the text doesn't tell us.
It is not as simple as "this is simple a question of does one believe what the bible says or what mans biased view of science says. Can you read out of the bible millions of years.?"
Why? Because the time of hovering is not stated. The nature of 'yom' (day) is not stated. All of these require interpretation.
I believe what the Bible says as the inerrant Word of God, but I also know that this same Bible teaches, 'Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed,
teaching the message of truth accurately' (2 Tim 2:15 NET).
'Rightly handling the word of truth', i.e. 'teaching the message of truth accurately' is a challenge for every believer who reads the Bible. I support the view you espouse - with a qualification, 'This is simple (sic) a question of does one believe what the bible (sic) says'. The qualification is: All Scripture needs to be interpreted according to the words used, the grammar and in context. This is what is involved in a plain reading of the text.
Oz