The age of the earth is a controversial subject in the modern church. While the secular scientific academy estimates the earth to be 4.543 billion years old, there are two common positions regarding the earth’s age among Bible-believing Christians today. The first is known as young earth creationism (YEC), which holds that the days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days and that the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago.
The other position on the age of the earth is what may be termed an agnostic approach. This view is more defined by what it rejects rather than what it embraces. Adherents usually do not claim to know the age of the earth and may say the secular models are off, but they reject the young earth position and its literal day interpretation of Genesis 1 (and thus they are often known as holding to an “old earth”). Instead, they hold to a different view of the days of Genesis 1, either the day-age view, the analogical-day view, or the framework view.
The Genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11
Christian debates about creation and the age of the earth usually revolve around Genesis 1 and especially the meaning of “day” (yom in Hebrew). This is a worthwhile debate, but that is not what I want to focus on here, as there are plenty of good resources out there debating the meaning of the days. Rather, I want to discuss the other important issue of the genealogies of Genesis 5:1-32 and 11:10-32. Why? Because regardless of which view one takes of Genesis 1, the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 teach a young humanity. And if one holds to a young humanity, this lends itself toward a young earth.
Thus, I am arguing two things here: (1) The genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 are complete genealogies with no gaps, and (2) The ages given in these genealogies date Adam’s creation to approximately 6,000 years ago. However, as we will see below, premise (2) is not dependent on premise (1).
The genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 provide two sets of 10 names, as listed below. They give the ages for when each man died, as well as his age when he fathered the named son. (Unlike Genesis 11, Genesis 5 also provides the years between when the son was born and the father’s death). For example, Adam lived until he was 930 years old (Genesis 5:5), but he fathered Seth when he was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3). Here are the names with the age each man fathered his named son and then the man’s total age.
Genesis 5:32 says Noah was 500 years old when he had his three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), but unless these were triplets, he had some of them at a later age. Genesis 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened, and thus his first son was 100 years old at the time of the flood. Genesis 11:10 then says Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arpachshad, “two years after the flood.” Adding all this up, Noah must have been 502 when Shem was born. (This also means Methuselah died in the year of the flood rather than surviving the flood by two years.) If you add up the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11, this comes to 2,008 years from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham.
Non-Literal Years?
Now there are criticisms of the position that the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 can be added up like this. The first argument is that these ages must be non-literal due to the large numbers compared to the modern lifespan (e.g. Adam lived 930 years). In support of this, they argue that ancient Sumerian genealogies also recorded lifespans of hundreds of years and we know they are exaggerated. This is suggested by Gordon Wenham in his Genesis commentary (Genesis 1–15, 133-134). However, though pagan literature may be helpful at times, we do not interpret the Bible through it.
Moreover, the long lifespans are not limited to the early chapters of Genesis 1–11. While some scholars like to contrast the “mythical” language of Genesis 1–11 with the historical language of Genesis 12–50, this does not account for the long lifespans of the patriarchs after Genesis 11. The patriarchs also lived to what would be considered absurd ages by today’s standards—Abraham lived 175 years (Genesis 25:7), Isaac lived 180 years (Genesis 35:28), Jacob lived 147 years (Genesis 47:28), and Joseph lived 110 years (Genesis 50:26).
The lifespans of the patriarchs gradually decreased over time, continuing the trend from Genesis 11. There is a clear contrast between the ages of the men pre-flood (with most living to around age 900) with the ages of those post-flood (with Shem only living to 600 and three generations only into the 400s). There is no definitive explanation as to why the lifespans decreased (apart from God’s declaration in Genesis 6:3). Something clearly happened after the flood, suggesting that the post-flood world was less suitable for long lives. It may very well be that certain foods were wiped out by the flood waters or that the atmosphere changed, and men’s bodies began to age and decay more quickly as a result.
Gaps in the Genealogies?
The second argument against adding up the ages of the men in Genesis 5 & 11 is that the genealogies here contain “gaps” and are thus incomplete genealogies. This was argued by William Henry Green in his 1890 article “Primeval Chronology” (promoted by B.B. Warfield in his 1911 essay “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race”). Green somehow even asserted that the birth year could be in reference to an “unnamed descendant,” which renders meaningless the clearly stated age of the father at the time the son/grandson was born. Even K.A. Kitchen makes this assertion in his On the Reliability of the Old Testament (440–441). (For a rebuttal of Green here, see Jeremy Sexton’s article, “Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90?”).
The majority of conservative Old Testament scholars follow Green in arguing there are gaps in the Genesis 5 & 11 genealogies. This includes Walter Kaiser, who reasons that “the author of Genesis 5 and 11 employed a symmetrical pattern of listing ten names in each genealogy with three sons at the conclusion of both lists” (Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents, 69). Kaiser further argues there is “a range of meaning” for terms such as a “generation,” “begat,” “son of,” “father of,” and “she bore a son” in the genealogies (69-70).
However, Kaiser (following Green) exaggerates the symmetry of the two sets of genealogies, as there are 10 names in Genesis 5 and only nine names in Genesis 11 (as Abram is mentioned but does not follow the genealogical formula). Moreover, a symmetry of two sets of ten names followed by three sons in each set does not prove these genealogies leave out names, in the same way that notable numbers in Scripture (such as the number 40) do not prove historical accounts are historically inaccurate. It is perfectly reasonable to hold that God orchestrated history according to patterns. In fact, an embrace of the historical truth of Scripture mandates such a view. God sent rain on the earth for 40 days (Genesis 7:4), Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days (Exodus 34:28), Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years (Numbers 14:34), and Jesus fasted in the wilderness for 40 days (Matthew 4:2). There is a pattern here, but all are accurate historical numbers.
When it comes to the text of Genesis 5 & 11, there is nothing indicating these numbers are to be taken as anything but accurate historical ages of each man’s death and the age of the father when his son was born—“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered…Seth,” and “When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh” (Genesis 5:3, 6). This pattern continues, and you can add up the years between fathers and sons, from Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and then from Noah to Abraham (Genesis 11).
Thus, even if we were to allow for genealogical “gaps” (meaning Seth was not Adam’s son but his grandson or great-grandson, etc.), the text still states the age of the father when the son/grandson was born and thus we still know the exact number of years between Adam and Seth. Therefore, we know the exact number of years from Adam to Abraham. Gaps are irrelevant for the chronology. In other words, genealogical gaps do not result in chronological gaps in Genesis 5 & 11.
That being said, there are several reasons to think there are no gaps in these genealogies:
While the Hebrew word ילד (yalad) translated “fathered” in Genesis 5 & 11 may possibly have a broader meaning than a father having a son (e.g. Genesis 46:15), it regularly refers to the birth of a child to parents in the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 21:2; Numbers 26:60).
The genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 give the exact age of the birth of the son, making these genealogies different from the shortened genealogies of Matthew and Luke—neither of which give any ages at all. Matthew 1:1-17 speaks of each man “fathering” [γεννάω] his son. (Though this word γεννάω is used in the Septuagint translation of ילד in Genesis 5 & 11, it is not conclusive.) Luke 3:23-38 speaks of each man being the “the son of” his father (using the Greek genitive case for possession), from Jesus all the way back to Adam.
The Genesis 11 genealogy gives young enough ages of the father when the child was born (most around age 30) that this does not leave enough time for grandchildren. These had to be their sons.
Genesis 5:32 says Noah was 500 years old when he fathered Japheth, and the rest of the text makes it clear that Japheth was Noah’s son, not his grandson. So at least some in the genealogies are father-son relationships.
Jude 14 refers to Enoch as the “seventh from Adam,” and Enoch is the seventh listed in Genesis 5, showing Jude did not consider there to be gaps in the genealogy.
The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1 does not give ages yet perfectly aligns with Genesis 5 & 11, suggesting there are no additional names to be added to the Genesis genealogies.
Luke 3 and the Septuagint
It must be noted that there are debates about the reliability of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) that is the basis of our English translations of Genesis 5 & 11. There are differences between the Hebrew MT in Genesis 5 & 11 and the Greek translation from the original Hebrew known as the Septuagint (LXX), as the LXX has an additional name (a second Cainan) and expanded years (many of which simply add 100 years to the birth age).
The LXX contains about 600 additional years between creation and the flood in Genesis 5. The Hebrew MT has 1,656 years between creation and the flood, but LXX gives either 2,242 or 2,262 (depending on the LXX version). For example, the Hebrew MT says Adam was 130 when Seth was born, while the LXX says 230. There are similar changes in Genesis 11.
Moreover, the LXX contains the additional name Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah in Genesis 11 (as does Luke 3), which adds 130 years to that of the Hebrew MT. The LXX thus has two Cainans, one at Genesis 10:24 and one at 11:12-13 [LXX]. Thus, instead of the Hebrew MT’s 352 years from the flood to the birth of Abram, the LXX has 993. Adding this all up from both Genesis 5 & 11, the Hebrew MT totals 2,008 years from creation to the birth of Abram, but the LXX totals 3,394. That is a big difference—1,386 additional years in the LXX.
To complicate matters, Luke 3:23-38 adds a second Cainan to the Genesis 11 genealogy, just like the LXX does:
Genesis 5 & 11; 1 Chronicles 1 (Hebrew MT)
Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham
Luke 3
Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahlaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham
It is important to state this is the only difference between the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 and Luke 3. Yet it is still an important one, as Luke 3:35-36 adds “Cainan” [Greek, Καϊνὰμ] between Arphaxad and Shelah. So where did this second Cainan in Luke come from? This is a perplexing textual issue that leaves several possible explanations. If we analyze the problem starting with Luke’s additional Cainan, here are the options:
(1) Luke’s original text does not include an additional Cainan.
This is supported by the 6th-century Codex Bezae of Luke omitting the additional Cainan, as well as the early manuscript P75. If these manuscripts are correct, there are two possibilities as to how the extra Cainan was added to Luke:
(a) A scribe added Cainan to conform Luke to the LXX genealogy.
(b) A scribe added Cainan to both Luke and the LXX genealogy of Genesis 11.
(2) Luke’s original text includes an additional Cainan.
While Codex Bezae and P75 lack the extra Cainan, this reading is attested in the majority of manuscripts. If this reading is correct, Luke must have followed either the LXX or another tradition, which raises several possible explanations:
(a) Luke follows the LXX.
(i) Luke and the LXX both err.
(ii) Luke and the LXX are both correct, and the Hebrew MT errs.
(iii) Luke and the LXX are both correct, and the Hebrew intentionally left out the additional Cainan.
(b) Luke follows another tradition outside the LXX.
(i) Luke errs.
(ii) Luke is correct, and the Hebrew intentionally left out the additional Cainan (and at least one set of LXX manuscripts was changed to follow Luke).
Option 2(a)(i) and 2(b)(i) are not options for Bible-believing Christians. Option (1) is the simplest of all, though even if correct still leaves questions about the LXX’s differences with the Hebrew MT. Option 2(a)(ii) raises questions about the reliability of the Hebrew MT, which is the basis for the majority of the English Old Testament.
Option 2(a)(iii) and 2(b)(ii) both offer the solution that the Hebrew did not err but intentionally left out the second Cainan (possibly because Cainan was adopted or because he was an idolater). While the idolater explanation seems to run into the problem of requiring gaps in the genealogies, the adoption explanation would not require gaps in the case of 2(b)(ii) because Luke 3 is not strictly biological (seen in that it lists Joseph as Jesus’ father even though he was not the biological father). However, this still raises questions as to why another tradition outside the Hebrew was aware of the additional Cainan, and whether the differing ages of the LXX should also be followed.
Travis Freeman, in his chapter on the Genesis genealogies in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (308-310) argues for option 1, suggesting that copyists added a second Cainan to Luke because of the LXX’s account, which was highly regarded by early Christians. His reasoning is that many church fathers omit the second Cainan from their commentaries on Luke 3, including Philo, John of Antioch, and Eusebius. He notes that Origen mentions the second Cainan but marks it with an obelisk.
Favoring the Hebrew MT of Genesis 5 & 11
There are those, such as Henry B. Smith, who argue that the LXX reflects a different and better Hebrew vorlage (Hebrew manuscript used for the Greek translation) of Genesis 5 & 11. Smith has promoted this view in his work, including “The Case of the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11.” (See also this shorter article.) Smith holds both that there was a second Cainan in Genesis 11 and that the longer ages given in the LXX of Genesis 5 & 11 are accurate. (He also argues the LXX should read 187 and not 167 for Methuselah’s age when he fathered Lamech, thus removing the problem of him dying 14 years after the flood.)
However, most conservative scholars favor the Hebrew MT of Genesis 5 & 11 as the original reading. Following this, most also think Luke’s original text does not include the additional Cainan (option 1 above). This includes the older scholar John Gill and modern scholars Jonathan Sarfati and Travis Freeman. The following are reasons to think the Hebrew MT reading is correct and the LXX errs in adding an additional Cainan:
In addition to the second Cainan not being found in the Hebrew MT or Samaritan Pentateuch, Josephus also omits the second Cainan from his list of post-flood names. Sarfati argues that Josephus must have followed older LXX manuscripts that did not include the additional Cainan. (On the other hand, Josephus did use the longer ages found in the LXX, and the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees c. 160-150 BC does include an additional Cainan.)
Church fathers such as Julius Africanus (c. 180-250 AD) did not include the additional Cainan in his chronology (and he even quoted Luke 3:23; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 6:126). (However, Julius, like Josephus, did accept the longer chronology of the LXX.)
1 Chronicles 1 leaves out a second Cainan in both the MT and LXX, which shows the internal inconsistency of the LXX and supports the case that the LXX of Genesis 11 erred.
In the LXX of Genesis 11, the three numbers given for the second Cainan’s ages are exactly the same as those of his son Salah, which is extremely unlikely and suggests his numbers were simply duplicated when the second Cainan was added to the text.
The second Cainan is also missing from the Targum of Jonathan, the Targum of Onkelos, the old Syrian text, the Latin Vulgate, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and all other ancient versions.
(It is also hard to squeeze Cainan into Genesis 11 because of the limited ages. Arphaxad would have had to be 17 when he had Cainan, and Cainan would have had to be 17 when he had Salah. Thus, if there was an additional Cainan in the Genesis 11 genealogy, this would support the case for favoring the longer LXX ages over those of the Hebrew MT.)
Yet even if we reject the second Cainan from Genesis 11 [LXX] and Luke 3, this still leaves the question why the LXX numbers in Genesis 5 & 11 differ so much. The LXX adds 586 years between creation and the flood and 880 years between the flood and Abraham. So did the LXX inflate the numbers? Or did the MT contract the numbers? Defenders of the MT argue the LXX chronology was expanded, while defenders of the LXX argue the MT was contracted by Jewish scribes. Much of this is speculation, and there are uncertainties here either way.
A Young Humanity and an Old Earth?
Regardless of whether the MT is correct (and there were 2,008 years between creation and Abraham) or whether the LXX is correct (and there were 3,394 years between creation and Abraham), this still would not put Adam much further back than 7,500 years ago. Now if Adam was created 6,000 to 7,500 years ago, then Genesis only allows for an old earth if the following are true: (1) the days of Genesis 1 are not literal, and/or (2) there was a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
The latter, known as the Gap Theory, would result in God creating the universe and earth (Genesis 1:1) but waiting billions of years before forming the earth and creating life (Genesis 1:3-31). In this case, Genesis 1:1 is understood as the initial act of creation instead of a summary statement of the more detailed account that follows. However, one major problem with the Gap Theory interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is that Exodus 20:11 says God created everything (“heaven and earth”) in the span of six days—“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.”
Yet even if one rejects the Gap Theory, one could potentially hold that God formed the earth and even creatures billions of years prior to forming man by rejecting literal days in Genesis 1. But why would God create animals and then wait millions or billions of years to crown creation with man, who is made in His image (Genesis 1:27)? While a rejection of literal days in Genesis 1 technically allows for an old earth along with a young humanity, such a scenario does not make much sense. To explain this delay, some Christians have entertained the idea that Adam was not created from the dust but instead evolved from a prior species of pre-human hominoids (known as “theistic evolution”).
But this has certainly capitulated far too much to secular science. The Bible not only never mentions such pre-human creatures, but it explicitly teaches that Adam (1) was formed from dust, (2) was made in God’s image, not that of an earthly father, and (3) was unfallen in the garden and became subject to death only as a result of his sin (Genesis 3:19). Theistic evolution either has to deny the historicity of Adam or else hold the position that Adam’s parents were subject to death but then produced an unfallen son made in God’s image who then married a woman also like himself. The Bible also teaches that all humans are descended from Adam and fallen in him, but theistic evolution introduces the problem that Adam’s parents and relatives were similar to him but not fallen in him or made in God’s image. Of course, it is also unclear what happened to these relatives of Adam. All of that is to say, holding to an old earth takes many Christians down a logical path that does not fit with the Bible’s creation account.
The above argument from Genesis 5 & 11 was made to show that the Bible teaches a young humanity. Thus, even if one rejects literal days in Genesis 1, by holding to the truthfulness of the Bible’s teaching on Adam and his descendants, a person is bucking up against the modern secular science that says humans began at least 100,000 years ago. In other words, if you affirm the historicity of Adam and the early chapters of Genesis, as well as deny Darwinism, you already discount the views of many scientists.
So what are you trying to gain by holding to an old earth? Accepting deep time does not gain Christians any respect from secular scientists. We are speaking of people who affirm Darwinian evolution and deny the historicity of Adam and the flood. So why would you accept their presupposition of deep time? The genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 teach a young humanity, and this lends itself toward a young earth.
