What is the first earth age? Is the concept of a first earth age biblical?

Neither ver. 1 nor ver. 2 is a summary of the Adamic earth, which only begins to be got ready from ver. 3. There are, accordingly, three states with the most marked distinction: original creation of the universe; the earth passed into a state of waste and emptiness; and the renovation of the earth, etc., for man its new inhabitant and ruler. Science is dumb, because wholly ignorant, how each of these three events, stupendous even the least of them, came to pass; it can only speak, often hesitatingly, about the effects of each, and, with least boldness, about creation in the genuine sense, though some, I cheerfully acknowledge, with outspoken and ungrudging cordiality. How different and surpassing is the language of scripture, which has revealed all these things to babes, if they are hid from or dubious to the wise and the prudent! From the Bible they are, or ought to be, known on infallible authority, and this in the first written words God gave to man, when Rome and Athens had not emerged from barbarism if they existed as such at all.

Let us look at that which Scripture tells us of the history of the first man, the place in which he appears, and glance for a moment at his surroundings. I like to see a young man in his surroundings, and if I can do so, I can form a fairly good opinion of what he is. "Noscitur a sociis," said an ancient. "A man is known by his companions." He is known by his company. We look tonight at the surroundings of this first young man — at that with which God surrounded him; and the opening chapters of Genesis present these very naturally and simply. Now we are told very frequently that the Scriptures and geology cannot be reconciled, and that science is now-a-days so far advanced that we are to believe the geologists and not the Scriptures. With your leave I mean to believe Scripture, and if the geologist does not agree with Scripture, then I am not going to follow him. I have nothing to say against his facts, but with his conclusions I am at issue. He demands illimitable spaces of time for the deposition of the various strata of the crust of the earth. I admit them. But look at your Bible, does it say that God did all His creatorial work in six days? It says nothing of the sort. The opening lines of God's revelation are — "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). You will say, When was the beginning? Well, you were not there, and I was not there, so we cannot fix it; but go back as far as you like, and you will find only the Creator was there. Man was not there, and man knows nothing about it. What took place God reveals. Between the first and second verses of Genesis 1 there is, without doubt, a period as illimitable as the most unbelieving and insatiable geologist would like. If he says he must have millions, or even billions of trillions of years, he is welcome to them. You will find space for them between the first and second verses of Genesis 1. The first statement of God is that He created the heavens and the earth, and the next statement says nothing about the heavens. It speaks of the earth alone, just because man was to be put upon it. The second verse deals only with the earth, "And the earth was without form and void," — if you will, a shapeless mass. You turn and say, So God made earth a shapeless mass? No; He did not. You reply, The first of Genesis says so. No, it does not. It says, "And the earth was without form, and void." If you have read your Bible carefully — and if you have never done that, I pray you from this night to begin — you will have come across a verse in the 45th chapter of the book of Isaiah, which tells you that God did not make the earth a shapeless mass. I will read it to you. "Thus says the Lord," — this is the true prophet — call to attention; and albeit learned nineteenth-century critics tell us that Isaiah was a rhapsodical and old-fashioned writer, not to be believed, I do believe him for all that, — I believe what he wrote. "Thus says the Lord" — and the Lord never tells any lies, which cannot be said of man — "that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth, and made it; he has established it, he created it (in the beginning) not in vain (the same word as is translated, "without form and void" in Gen. 1:2); he formed it (during the six days) to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is none else" (Isa. 45:18).

But not only do the writers of the Scriptures inform us that the worlds were framed by the word of God, but the writer of Genesis, after telling us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, says that the earth was waste and empty, and darkness lay upon the face of the deep. How did he know these things? and who told Isaiah that the earth was not created in that condition? The prophet says, “He created it not in vain” (Isa. 45:18). The word here translated “in vain” is the same word which in Genesis 1:2 is translated “without form.” These men speak about these things as though they had been present to see for themselves. Who could tell from reading the first two verses of Genesis that the earth was not brought into existence, waste, empty, and draped in gloom of night? One who knows God is not likely to think otherwise than that what He does will be perfect; still, one might easily read the first and second verses together as an unbroken account of the creation; indeed, the first chapter has often been taken as an account of the creation, not seeing that the first verse speaks of the creation of the heavens and of the earth, the second verse of the latter’s subsequent ruin, and from verse three until the end we have an account of the making of the earth and everything we find upon it. Now it is with that which transpired between the first and second verse that the mind of the geologist is occupied.

Then the second verse puts us in presence of another great fact, which has been, no doubt, illustrated by geologists, but in no way are we indebted to them for ascertaining it. Here it is in the Bible without them and before geology was heard of: "And the earth was without form, and void." It is clearly a condition totally different from the first verse. Not a word about the heaven being without form, and void; the earth alone was so. Some, no doubt, have found a difficulty because of the word "and" (!) being introduced, as if it linked the second verse with the first in point of time; but this is all a mistake. If the word "and" had not been here, the first verse might have been taken for a sort of summary of all the rest of the chapter; and thus hasty readers, and preachers, and commentators have been too disposed to treat it in expounding the chapter. They imagined that God's creating in the beginning was set out in detail under the various days that afterwards follow; but that little conjunction precludes such an interpretation. Compare such statements elsewhere, as for instance, in Genesis 5: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made be him.'' There we have the absence of the conjunction. The reason is that the first words are an abstract of that which the rest of the chapter brings before us. Had there been no "and" at the beginning of the second verse of the first chapter, the common (or at least what used to be the common) construction might plead some show of reason for itself, as far as the language of Moses is concerned. There might have then been an impeachment of the accuracy of the divine record. As it stands, there is thorough and manifest correctness. The only persons that have made mistakes are either Christians with upright wishes, who have merely attached their own erroneous notion to the scripture, or men of science who similarly mis-reading it have forthwith sought to malign it. There was no just ground for either; the fault was in both, not in God's word. If the LXX. meant "and" in an adversative sense, as many have done since, I believe them mistaken, and that the conjunction is simply a particle of connection. The true interpretation is confirmed by the substantive verb which in Hebrew is never, as often in English and other tongues, a mere copula. The facts, therefore, of verses 1 and 2 are connected; the times are kept expressly separate. In the beginning (let it be ever so far back) was the creation; subsequently — but how long after is not said — was the chaotic confusion of the earth. Here Dr. Kennedy (Donnellan Lectures, ii. 12, etc.) seems to be in evident error.

"And the earth was without form, and void." This is a second fact. There is no limitation of the space that intervened between the original creation of heaven and earth in verse 1, and the dreary ruin depicted in the earlier clause of verse 2. We are not told what were the grounds on which God dissolved the fabric of the earth He had created, and brought it into the chaotic condition so strikingly set forth. But I repeat my assertion that the creation of a chaos, or the existence of a chaos as a primeval state, is a heathen and not a biblical thought. What the Bible says is quite inconsistent with such an idea. "Heaven and earth," we have seen, does not mean chaos, but a state of things with an order necessarily distinguishing them. What use God may have made of the earth as it originally came from His fiat is another question, and our curiosity is not indulged by the Bible. The fact, however, is certain; and it is a fact of the utmost moment, and of very great interest in its place. All the facts that have been discovered of the earliest conditions of the earth fall in with it; that is to say, they point to a time when the animal, or even vegetable kingdom, when life in its lowest forms as yet had no existence on the globe. Is there no difficulty then? I grant you that man has the utmost possible difficulty in arriving at anything more than a First Cause. What the nature of that First Cause is, how can he tell? The very same principle that leads him to feel there must be a First Cause forbids his understanding it. The reason of this too it is not hard to see. Man himself infers a first cause, but he, a caused being, never can per se understand a first cause that is not caused. It is outside and above the sphere and nature of his own being. There man feels, and, alas! would hide, his own ignorance. But here in Scripture all is plain. We are told that all things above and below had a First Cause, and that He who caused them to be was God, who by the absolute act of His own will was pleased so to create (verse 1). Then (verse 2) follows another fact — all the earthly part of the creation completely dissolved, and in hopeless confusion. I shall prove that Scripture refers to the same words elsewhere; never as the original state, but a state to which God was pleased to reduce the object in question. The importance of this cannot be over-estimated in such a theme as the present.

To view these Scriptures side by side is very illuminating. The former Scripture says the earth was found in a WASTE and void condition. The latter Scripture as emphatically states that in its original condition the earth was NOT IN A WASTE condition. The Hebrew word, tohu, is translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2. The same word, tohu, is translated “in vain” in Isaiah 45:18 in our Authorised Version. In other words, Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was found in a state of chaos and ruin, whilst Isaiah 45:18 states that the original creation was not so.

The first verse of the Bible records the original creation of the heaven and the earth; whilst the second verse states that the earth was in a state of chaos and darkness. Comparing these Scriptures one with the other, earnest Bible students have plainly seen that there was an original fair creation, and that some unrecorded catastrophe must have occurred, which reduced this earth to a state of ruin and chaos. The time that elapsed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1, is sufficient to allow for any demands that may be deemed necessary for geological changes in the structure of the earth’s surface. But what that time was we cannot conjecture. Scripture is silent as to this and also as to the cause of this tremendous catastrophe to our planet. When Scripture is silent, it is impertinent for us to speculate. We must respect the silences of Scripture, as well as its revelations.

First of all there was the creation by God — both of the heavens and of the earth. Then we have the further fact stated of the state into which the earth was plunged — to which it was reduced. Why this was, how it was, God has not here explained. It was not necessary nor wise to reveal it by Moses. If man can discover such facts by other means, be it so. They have no small interest; but men are apt to be hasty and short-sighted. I advise none to embark too confidently in the pursuit of such studies. Those who enter on them had better be cautious, and well weigh alleged facts, and above all their own conclusions, or those of other men. But the perfectness of scripture is, I am bold to say, unimpeachable. The truth affirmed by Moses remains in all its majesty and simplicity withal.

In the beginning God created everything — the heavens and the earth. Then the earth is described as void and waste, and (not as succeeding, but accompanying it) darkness upon the face of the deep, contemporaneously with which the Spirit of God broods upon the face of the waters. All this is an added account. The real and only force of the <span style="font-family: 'H ebraica'">w]</span> "<i>and</i>" "and" is another fact; not at all as if it implied that the first and second verses spoke of the same time, any more than they decide the question of the length of the interval. The phraseology employed perfectly agrees with and confirms the analogy of revelation, that the first verse speaks of an original condition which God was pleased to bring into being; the second, of a desolation afterwards brought in; but how long the first lasted what changes may have intervened, when or by what means the ruin came to pass, is not the subject-matter of the inspired record, but open to the ways and means of human research, if indeed man has sufficient facts on which to ground a sure conclusion. It is false that scripture does not leave room for his investigation.

In verse 2 we move from that remote epoch to a time much nearer our own, and we descend, as regards this earth, to a state of very great imperfection. It is found "without form;" that is, a ruin, a waste: it is also "void:" that is, empty. Isaiah 45:18 plainly says, "He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited." This is very striking, for here again the proper word for creation is used, as in our first verse, and "in vain" is a translation of the same word as "without form" in our verse. So we have a definite confirmation of the thought that the state of the earth as in verse 2, was one that supervened, long after the original creation, as the result of some catastrophic event which is not revealed to us.

Besides the ruin and the emptiness there was also darkness, not everywhere but "on the face of the deep." It looks as if at this stage the earth was covered with water, the face of which was swathed in darkness. God is light, and elsewhere in the universe light was shining, but something hindered light from reaching the earth. In this condition of things the Spirit of God acted. We believe it was Herbert Spencer, an atheist philosopher, who said that, to account for things visible, five things must be predicated: viz., time, space, matter, force, motion. All five appear in our chapter. The Spirit of God is indeed Force, and He moved on the face of this watery matter.

But not apart from the Word of God. It is remarkable how in the New Testament the Spirit and the word are brought together, and specially so in connection with the new birth — see John 3:5-6, and 1 Peter 1:25. Hence we cannot but see a striking analogy between God's work here in things material and His even greater work in things spiritual. When our spiritual condition was one of ruin and emptiness and darkness, light shined into our hearts by the moving of the Spirit of God and the power of the word of God. The first word recorded as proceeding from the mouth of God is "Light," for we understand that "Let there be light" is more literally, "Light be!" This is alluded to by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:6, only there he carries us beyond new birth in itself to its glorious result, in beholding "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." What a contrast between the glory of His face and the darkness that once was on the face of the deep!

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1) But when the beginning began God has not told us. We may be certain that some event took place after the beginning, whereby “the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep,” for “God is not the author of confusion.” (1 Cor. 14:33.)

We are not told here of the method of divine creation. How could we enter into that method by which Omnipotence expresses itself? Science tells us of unlimited periods of time in which the earth has passed through various stages of progress. Faith has endeavored to link these with the periods suggested in the seven days. Of this we will speak a little later. Just at present, it is well to remember that God's first statement of creation has no modifications. He does not speak of time or methods, but simply of that omnipotent act by which all things were brought into existence.

The second verse need not be taken as describing the necessary condition of the universe after its creation, but a state into which it fell through causes more or less clearly understood. A passage in Isaiah 45:18 tells us that God did not create the earth "without form." This may refer to the ultimate outcome of the new creative work, which we see in the preparation of the earth as the abode of man. It does not necessarily mean that the earth did not pass through successive stages, thus gradually reaching its present condition. What is dwelt upon in the second verse, however, is the fact that after the original creation in which all things were brought into being, the earth was in a condition of formless chaos. It has been the custom, and we think rightly, to say that in this general statement we have abundance of room for the vast geological ages which a careful study of the earth calls for. We need not think of the first act of creation being futile as to the earth on one side; nor on the other, look for a primeval state of order which was later followed by chaos as the result of some untoward event.

I accept what is now pretty well known by the student of the word, that in the term which opens the book of Genesis — “In the beginning,” as well as in the next clause of the verse, God has left it open for the possibility of millions of years to have elapsed since that “beginning” was, when God created the heavens and the earth; and thus time sufficient was allowed, to form the strata of the earth, as it is now found, before the work of the six days was accomplished, in the varied ages which had passed, and through the many catastrophes which had probably taken place. For we read in the next clause of the verse, that the earth (not the heavens), was without form and waste (tohu), having probably fallen into chaos. God had not created it in this state, as Isaiah testifies (Isa. 45:18). “He created it not waste” — the same Hebrew word as used in Gen. 1.