Gleason Archer

Gleason Archer And Old Earth Creationism 

Gleason Archer, a renowned scholar of the Old Testament and professor of biblical languages, was a prominent advocate for the inerrancy of Scripture. At his death he was fluent in 24 languages and was the lead translator of the NASB bible. While he upheld a high view of the Bible's authority and truthfulness, he also articulated a perspective on creation that was open to the possibility of an "old earth." His views, primarily detailed in his seminal work A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, navigated the intersection of biblical interpretation and scientific findings. 

Here are ten key points that encapsulate Gleason Archer's writings on the Bible and Old-Earth Creationism.

First, Archer distinguished between biblical inerrancy and a specific interpretation of the days of Genesis 1. He argued that the Bible is without error in all it affirms, but he did not believe that this required a literal, 24-hour day interpretation for each of the six days of creation. He saw the "yom" (Hebrew for "day") as having multiple potential meanings, including an indefinite period of time.

Second, Archer critiqued the young-earth creationist argument that the genealogies of Genesis could be used to precisely date the earth. He pointed out that the Hebrew word "ben" (son of) could also mean "descendant of," indicating that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 might contain gaps. He cited biblical evidence, such as the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, to demonstrate that biblical writers often skipped generations to create a more compact and memorable list.

Matthew 1:1

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Third, he posited the "Day-Age" theory as a viable interpretation. According to this view, each of the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 corresponds to a long geological era. This interpretation allows the biblical account to align with the scientific evidence for an ancient universe and earth, without compromising the literal truth of the text. He saw this as a way to harmonize the two "books" of revelation: Scripture and nature.

Fourth, Archer emphasized the importance of understanding the biblical author's intent. He believed that Moses, in writing Genesis, was communicating a theological message about God's sovereignty and creative power, not a scientific textbook. The purpose was to show that the one true God created everything, in contrast to the polytheistic creation myths of the surrounding cultures.

Fifth, he addressed the creation of the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), which he saw as a separate act from the six days of creation. This allowed for the possibility of a long period of time between the initial creation of matter and the subsequent shaping and filling of the earth described in the rest of the chapter.

Sixth, Archer pointed out that the Hebrew word "bara" (create) and "asah" (make) are not used in a strict technical sense to distinguish between creation ex nihilo and the shaping of existing matter. He argued that the Bible is not trying to give a precise scientific description of these processes but rather to affirm God's ultimate role as the author of all things.

Seventh, he argued that the command for Adam to work the ground (Genesis 2:15) was a blessing, not a curse. This challenged the notion that a perfect, pre-fall world was entirely without effort or struggle. This subtle point underscores his willingness to re-examine traditional interpretations in light of the biblical text itself.

Eighth, Archer’s view also accommodated the fossil record. He saw no biblical prohibition against the idea of animal death before the Fall of Adam. For him, the curse in Genesis 3 applied specifically to human beings and their relationship with the earth, not to the entire animal kingdom. This allowed for the existence of death and suffering in the animal world prior to human sin.

Ninth, he saw the order of creation in Genesis 1 as broadly consistent with the scientific order of development. For example, he noted that the account begins with light, then the separation of waters, followed by plant life, then marine and avian life, and finally land animals and humans. He saw this as a remarkable parallel that lent credence to the biblical account without demanding a strict, day-by-day, 24-hour correspondence.

Tenth, and perhaps most importantly, Archer's overall approach was one of humility and scholarly integrity. He was willing to acknowledge the legitimate questions raised by science and sought to find a biblical interpretation that was both faithful to the text and intellectually honest. He was a champion of biblical authority who believed that a robust faith could withstand the scrutiny of scientific inquiry, and that the two spheres of knowledge could ultimately inform and enrich each other. His writings remain a valuable resource for those seeking to reconcile faith and science, and his legacy continues to influence Old-Earth Creationist thought.