8 – Conclusion
1 – Introduction
2 – To Use or not to Use the Strict Chronology Version
3 – How Genesis Genealogies were Abridged
4 – Thread of History not Lost in the Post-Flood World
5 – Examination of the Genesis Chronology
6 – Writing and Technology: Did Mankind have to Start from Scratch?
7 – The Ice Age
8 – Conclusion
Whether or not one teaches the strict chronology interpretation is a rather minor issue. The fact that in the Bible one can trace the lineage of ancestors right back to the very Beginning is astounding. And that in itself is a great faith-builder. For some who are more scientifically inclined or knowledgeable in ancient history, then a more nuanced understanding of the Biblical chronology, as outlined in this study, would be helpful.
To understand the mystery of Earth’s age, we can’t be like those in the story of “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – focusing on one aspect only. We have to take the various aspects into consideration and give them their due.
The strict Genesis chronology of 6,000 years, while not completely accurate, is far better than believing in vast ages of evolutionary time – a common belief nowadays, but one that does not stand up under the searchlight of rigorous scientific investigation. (Again the posts 5A to 5F in the series Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage offer a good deal of information on this issue.) So the strict chronology, even though not completely accurate, does at least tell us this much: the span of time for Earth’s age could not have been very long (compared to what is usually thought nowadays). Genuine scientific and historical research can easily corroborate this.
As for scientific research, here we have to guard against theories promoted as if they are iron-clad truths when, in fact, they are nothing more than imaginative guesswork which, in the light of more thorough investigation, should be discarded. But science can help us get a better grasp of the dynamics of what was going on during those early years of Earth’s history.
In other words, science is extremely useful when it works in conjunction with the Sacred Records. It fine-tunes our understanding, proving the Flood cataclysm, explaining how the Ice Age came into being with an accurate idea of its extent and duration. But when Science tries to refute the Sacred Record, then we become hostage to scientists’ imaginations, wild theories, and speculation.
And for the work of the historian, secular records, though often exaggerated or spotty, can provide valuable clues to verify and fine-tune what is written in the Sacred Records.
So these three avenues of research have to be brought together rather than remain isolated, each in its own corner, each insisting that its version is the only right one. The theologian should not insist on the strict chronology of 6,000 years. The scientist should start looking at his or her evidence through the lens of creationism and stop stretching Earth’s time span into millions and billions of years. The historian should allow for the possibility that, in the present (post-Flood) age, mankind started off with the knowledge of writing and a certain amount of technological skill; he did not have to work his way up through a gigantic learning curve of thousands of years before he knew how to write or invent the wheel.
There is so much more we could learn and understand about our ancient heritage. But these kinds of insights remain hidden right now behind the fog of scientific speculation. How much better it would be if the world of academia could accept the truths put forth in the Sacred Record. What a strength and support that would be for the future generation to be liberated from the fog of uncertainty about our origins, and from doubts about the existence or relevance of the Almighty.
Perhaps nothing much will change until Christ returns. But in the meantime, those who believe and understand what is set forth in the Book of Genesis, can proclaim it to whoever is seeking and desires a better, more accurate understanding of our ancient heritage. (The post “Creation? Evolution? or Both!” offers a clear and brief explanation that may be useful to use in this kind of endeavor.)
~ THE END ~