---
title: "Quotations — The Age of Earth in Church History"
description: "Every quotation used in the article, verbatim, with the edition, printed page, and the route by which it was verified.  Nothing here was established through WebFetch."
theme: common/themes/berean2/theme.php
---

# Quotations, verified

Companion to [The Age of Earth in Church History](./).  Each entry gives the wording as printed, the locator, and how the bytes were read.  Routes:  **CCEL** = `ccel.org/ccel/schaff/...` HTML downloaded with curl and stripped locally, printed page fixed from CCEL's `Page_NNN` anchors;  **NBA** = `augustinus.it` Latin (CCSL family, chapter.section numbering);  **LL** = thelatinlibrary.com;  **IA-djvu** = archive.org `_djvu.txt` OCR of a public-domain scan, page fixed from the printed running head;  **IA-pd** = `bin/iapdsearch.py` paragraph read of a print-disabled archive.org item, leaf converted to page from the item's `BookReaderJSIA.php` map;  **Sefaria** = REST API v3 JSON;  **Perseus/First1K** = TEI XML on disk in the source library.  Working copies are in `/home/eric/scratch/genesis-series/age-of-earth-in-church-history/`.

## Jewish sources

**Josephus, *Against Apion* 1.1** (Niese, Perseus TEI, `sources/books/niese-1889_josephus-contra-apionem-greek-perseus.xml`):  "πεντακισχιλίων ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸν ἱστορίαν περιέχουσαν ἐκ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἱερῶν βίβλων" -- the *Antiquities* "contain the history of five thousand years" drawn from "our sacred books."  Route:  Perseus/First1K on disk, read with a Python tag-stripper.

**Josephus, *Antiquities* 1.1.1** (Whiston, `sources/books/niese-1890_josephus-antiquities/antiquities-english-whiston.xml`):  "Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made."  And:  "this was indeed the first day.  But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time."  Route:  Perseus TEI on disk.

**Philo, *On the Creation* 13** (Yonge 1854, earlychristianwritings.com transcription `yonge/book1.html`):  "And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement".  Route:  curl, tags stripped.

**Philo, *Allegorical Interpretation* 1.2** (Yonge, `yonge/book2.html`):  "It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make."  Route:  curl.

**b. Sanhedrin 97a** (Sefaria, William Davidson edition, CC-BY-NC;  Aramaic from the vocalised text):  "אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: שֵׁית אַלְפֵי שְׁנֵי הָוֵי עָלְמָא, וְחַד חָרוּב" -- Davidson:  "Rav Ketina says: Six thousand years is the duration of the world, and it is in ruins for one thousand years".  And:  "תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ: שֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים שָׁנָה הָוֵי עָלְמָא, שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים תּוֹהוּ, שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים תּוֹרָה, שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ" -- "The school of Eliyahu taught: Six thousand years is the duration of the world. Two thousand of the six thousand years are characterized by chaos; two thousand years are characterized by Torah ... and two thousand years are the period of the coming of the Messiah."  Route:  `https://www.sefaria.org/api/v3/texts/Sanhedrin.97a` and `?version=english`, segments 12 and 14 (as numbered on 2026-09-05).

## The fathers' totals

**Theophilus of Antioch, *To Autolycus* 3.28** (ANF 2, p. 120;  CCEL `anf02.iv.ii.iii.xxviii.html`):  "From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. ... All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days."  Page fixed because 3.27 carries the `Page_120` anchor and 3.29 carries `Page_121`, so 3.28 lies wholly on p. 120.

**Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* 1.21** (ANF 2, pp. 332-333;  CCEL `anf02.vi.iv.i.xxi.html`):  "From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days" (p. 332) ... "and from Adam to the death of Commodus, five thousand seven hundred and eighty-four years, two months, twelve days" (p. 333).

**Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome, Syncellus, *Chronicon Paschale*** -- the Greek and Latin of every figure (5500, 5531, 5502, 5228, 5518, 2015, 5501, 5507) was verified against page images in earlier sessions;  the locators and wording are in `agents/memory/am-5500-world-week-chronography.md` and are not repeated here.

**Origen, *Against Celsus* 1.19** (Koetschau GCS, vol. 1 p. 70-71;  First1K TEI on disk `koetschau-1899_origen-contra-celsum-greek-perseus.xml`):  "ὁ Κέλσος λεληθότως βουλόμενος διαβαλεῖν τὴν κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐαν, ἐμφαίνοντα μηδέπω μυρίων ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸν ἔχειν τὸν κόσμον ἀλλὰ πολλῷ τούτου λειπόμενον" -- Celsus covertly attacks "the Mosaic cosmogony, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much less than that."  **1.20**:  "ἐνέπεσεν ὁ Κέλσος εἰς τὸ μαρτυρεῖν τῷ νεώτερον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ οὐδέπω μυρίων ἐτῶν" -- Celsus "has fallen into testifying that the world is comparatively young and not yet ten thousand years old."  English renderings are ours from the Greek.

**Origen, *De Principiis* 4.1.16** (Rufinus' Latin, ANF 4, p. 365;  CCEL `anf04.vi.v.v.i.html`, between the `Page_365` and `Page_366` anchors):  "Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars -- the first day even without a sky?"

**Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* 5.28.3** (ANF 1, p. 557;  CCEL `anf01.ix.vii.xxix.html`):  "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. ... For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed:  it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year."

**Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* 5.23.2** (ANF 1, p. 551;  CCEL `anf01.ix.vii.xxiv.html`, before the `Page_552` anchor):  "And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since 'a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."

**Justin Martyr, *Dialogue with Trypho* 81** (ANF 1, pp. 239-240;  CCEL `anf01.viii.iv.lxxxi.html`, the `Page_240` anchor falls inside the sentence):  "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years.  We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject."

**Lactantius, *Divine Institutes* 7.14** (ANF 7, p. 211;  CCEL `anf07.iii.ii.vii.xiv.html`, both sentences precede the `Page_212` anchor):  "Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place".  And:  "Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years."

**Basil, *Hexaemeron* 2.8** (NPNF2 vol. 8, p. 64;  CCEL `npnf208.viii.iii.html`):  "Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? ... If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain.  Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night".

**Ambrose, *Hexameron* 1.10.37** (Savage, FOTC 42, 1961, p. 42;  IA-pd `hexameronparadis0042ambr`, leaf 58;  JSIA map gives leaf = page + 16 uniformly across 454 numbered leaves):  "In notable fashion has Scripture spoken of a 'day,' not the 'first day.' ... But Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent."

**Ephrem the Syrian, *Commentary on Genesis* 1.1** (Mathews and Amar, FOTC 91, 1994, p. 74;  IA-pd `selectedprosewor0000ephr`, leaf 108, whose OCR carries the running head "74 ST. EPHREM THE SYRIAN";  JSIA map leaf = page + 34):  "So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days.  No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic".  Editors' introduction, p. 60 (leaf 94):  "Most of the Commentary is a close literal reading of the text. ... The entire first half of the Commentary on Genesis is devoted to only three pericopes:  the six days of creation; the fall of Adam and Eve; and the flood."

**Augustine, *City of God* 11.6** (LL `civ11.shtml`):  "Qui dies cuius modi sint, aut perdifficile nobis aut etiam inpossibile est cogitare, quanto magis dicere."  Dods:  "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

**Augustine, *City of God* 12.10** (NBA numbering 12.10.2 at `cdd_12_libro.htm`;  the Latin Library marks the same chapter `[XI]`):  "Fallunt eos etiam quaedam mendacissimae litterae, quas perhibent in historia temporum multa annorum milia continere, cum ex Litteris sacris ab institutione hominis nondum completa annorum sex milia computemus."  Dods 12.10:  "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."  **12.12** (Latin Library `[XIII]`):  "ut minus quam sex milia sint annorum, ex quo esse coepisse in sacris litteris inuenitur" -- man was created "so recently that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since he began to be."

**Augustine, *City of God* 18.40** (NBA `cdd_18_libro.htm`, chapter 40;  the Latin Library's Book 18 is defective from ch. 32 and was not used):  "Frustra itaque vanissima praesumptione garriunt quidam dicentes, ex quo Aegyptus rationem siderum comprehendit, amplius quam centum annorum milia numerari. ... Cum enim ab ipso primo homine, qui est appellatus Adam, nondum sex annorum milia compleantur, quomodo non isti ridendi potius quam refellendi sunt".  Dods:  "In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. ... For since it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted".

**Augustine, *The Literal Meaning of Genesis* 4.33 and 5.5** (Taylor, ACW 41, as quoted by Louis Lavallee, *JETS* 32/4 (1989) 460, with his notes 21-22 giving the ACW pages;  the JETS PDF is image-only and was OCR'd locally with tesseract):  "It follows, therefore, that He, who created all things together, simultaneously created these six days, or seven, or rather the one day six or seven times repeated."  And:  "Now the reason why Scripture records that the creation was made perfect in six days, with the same day repeated six times, is that six is a perfect number, not that any interval of time was necessary for God, as if he could not have simultaneously created all things".  Taylor's ACW volume itself was not obtained;  these two sentences rest on Lavallee's transcription.

## Medieval and Reformation

**Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiae* I q. 46 a. 2** (Dominican Fathers translation, newadvent `summa/1046.htm`):  "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist".  **I q. 74 a. 2**:  "On this question Augustine differs from other expositors.  His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect ... while others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only."  New Advent is used here for prose only;  no numeral in the article rests on it.

**Bede, *Letter to Plegwin* (708)** (Giles, *Complete Works of Venerable Bede*, vol. 1, 1843, p. 147;  `sources/books/giles-1843_bedae-opera-vol1.txt`, the OCR running heads "146 EPISTOLA." and "148 EPISTOLA." bracket the passage):  "Octavianus regnavit annos 56.  Hujus anno 42, Dominus nascitur, completis ab Adam annis 3952, juxta alios 5199."  -- in Octavian's 42nd year "the Lord is born, 3952 years from Adam being completed, or according to others 5199."

**Luther, *Lectures on Genesis*, on Gen 1** (Lenker's 1904 translation, *Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1: Luther on the Creation*, Project Gutenberg #48193, ch. 1 "Introduction";  the Gutenberg text has no page numbers):  "From Moses however we know that 6000 years ago the world did not exist."  And:  "With respect therefore to this opinion of Augustine, we conclude that Moses spoke literally and plainly and neither allegorically nor figuratively; that is, he means that the world with all creatures was created in six days as he himself expresses it."  The standard American edition wording (LW 1:3, 1:5) could not be reached;  Lenker's Victorian rendering is used.

**Calvin, *Institutes* 1.14.1** (Beveridge, CCEL `institutes.iii.xv.html`, p. 141 of that edition):  "the present world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six thousandth year."  **1.14.2**:  "Moses relates that the work of creation was accomplished not in one moment, but in six days."

**Calvin, *Commentary on Genesis* 1:5** (King's translation, CCEL `calcom01.vii.i.html`, no page anchors):  "Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment.  For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.  Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men."

**Melanchthon, quoted in Barr 1985** (Barr, "Why the World Was Created in 4004 B.C.," *BJRL* 67 (1985) 581;  `sources/papers/barr-1985_why-world-created-4004bc.md`):  "sex milia annorum mundus, et deinde conflagratio: duo milia inane; duo milia lex; duo milia dies Messiae."  Barr's own sentence, same page:  "Figures a little below 4000 were common, and are found both in church tradition and in the works of scholarly chronologists."  And p. 582:  "Scaliger placed creation in 3950 B.C. and Petavius in 3983.  So the figure of 4004 was not in itself a revolutionary shift".

**Ussher, *Annals of the World* (1658), p. 1** -- verified in an earlier session against the EEBO scan;  see `agents/memory/genesis-5-11-external-witnesses.md`.  **Lightfoot** likewise (creation in September 3929 BC, *Works* ed. Pitman 1822 vol. 4).

**Kepler, *Harmonices Mundi* Book V, introduction, in Brewster's English** (David Brewster, *The Martyrs of Science*, London: Murray, 1841, p. 240;  IA-djvu `martyrsscienceo00brewgoog`, running head "240 JOHN KEPLER"):  "The die is cast; the book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which.  It may well wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer."  The Latin of the 1619 edition (archive.org `ioanniskepplerih00kepl`) could not be located in the OCR, which garbles that gathering;  the Latin is therefore not quoted.

**Newton to Thomas Burnet, January 1680/1** (Keynes Ms. 106(B), Newton Project THEM00253, normalised transcription, downloaded with curl):  "Now for the number & length of the six days: by what is said above you may make the first day as long as you please, & the second day too if there was no diurnal motion till there was a terraqueous globe".  And:  "If you would have a year for each days work you may by supposing day & night was made by the annual motion of the earth only & that the earth had no diurnal motion till towards the end of the six days."  And, on the Sabbath:  "me thinks one of the tenn commandment given by God in mount Sina, prest by divers of the prophets, observed by our Saviour, his Apostles & first Christians for 300 years".

**Burnet, *The Sacred Theory of the Earth*, Book III ch. 2** (London 1719 ed., vol. 2, p. 7;  IA-djvu `sacredtheoryeart02burn`, running head "Concerning the Conflagration. 7"):  "This Question is only to be understood of the Sublunary World, of this Earth and its Furniture; which had its Original about six thousand years ago, according to the History of Moses".  Long-s normalised.

## Deep time enters

**Buffon, *Les époques de la nature* (Paris 1780), p. 117 by the OCR running head, which is uncertain** (IA-djvu `b28758882`):  "à la vue de votre tableau, la Terre est âgée de soixante-quinze mille ans" -- from the objection Buffon reports and answers.  And later:  "en comptant soixante-quinze mille ans depuis la formation de la Terre".  The page is given as "p. 117" because the running head two lines above the first passage reads "de la Nature. i i 7";  treat the page as approximate.

**Hutton, "Theory of the Earth," *Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh* 1 (1788), p. 304** (IA-djvu `bim_eighteenth-century_transactions-of-the-roya_royal-society-of-edinbur_1788_1`, running head "304 THEORY of the EARTH"):  "The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning, -- no prospect of an end."  Long-s normalised.

**Chalmers, lecture of 1804** (Hanna, *Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers*, New York: Harper, 1850, vol. 1, p. 91;  IA-djvu `memoirslifeandw18unkngoog`, running head "ÆT. 24. ANTIQUITY OF THE GLOBE. 91", bracketed by the heads "90 MEMOIRS OF DR. CHALMERS. 1804." and "93"; Hanna himself cites it as "ante, p. 91" on p. 391.  An earlier draft misread the damaged head as 81):  "The writings of Moses do not fix the antiquity of the globe.  If they fix any thing at all, it is only the antiquity of the species."

**Cuvier, *Essay on the Theory of the Earth*, 3rd ed., trans. Jameson (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1817), p. 171** (IA-djvu `essayontheoryea02jamegoog`, running head "THEORY OF THE EARTH. 171"):  "if there is any circumstance thoroughly established in geology, it is, that the crust of our globe has been subjected to a great and sudden revolution, the epoch of which cannot be dated much farther back than five or six thousand years ago".

**Buckland, *Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology* (Bridgewater Treatise, 1836), vol. 1, pp. 17-19** (IA-djvu `geologymineralog001buck`, running heads "18 CONSISTENCY OF GEOLOGICAL" and "DISCOVERIES WITH SACRED HISTORY. 19"):  "there will be no necessity for such extension, in order to reconcile the text of Genesis with physical appearances, if it can be shown that the time indicated by the phenomena of Geology may be found in the undefined interval, following the announcement of the first verse.  In my inaugural lecture, published at Oxford, 1820, pp. 31, 32, I have stated my opinion in favour of the hypothesis, 'which supposes the word "beginning," as applied by Moses in the first verse of the book of Genesis, to express an undefined period of time, which was antecedent to the last great change that affected the surface of the earth'".

**Sedgwick, Presidential Address to the Geological Society, 18 Feb 1831**, *Proc. Geol. Soc.* 1, p. 313 (`sources/papers/sedgwick-1831_anniversary-address.md`, page image-verified in an earlier session):  "Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation."

**Lyell to Poulett Scrope, 14 June 1830** (*Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell*, ed. K. M. Lyell, London 1881, vol. 1, p. 268;  IA-djvu `lifelettersandj02lyelgoog` -- despite its identifier this scan is vol. 1;  running head "268 SIR CHARLES LYELL. chap. xi."):  "I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it."

**Hugh Miller, *The Testimony of the Rocks* (1857), Preface** (`sources/books/miller-1857b_the-testimony-of-the-rocks.epub`, front matter before the p. 7 anchor):  "I adopt, in my Third and Fourth Lectures, that scheme of reconciliation between the Geologic and Mosaic Records which accepts the six days of creation as vastly extended periods; and I have been reminded by a somewhat captious critic that I once held a very different view ... I certainly did once believe with Chalmers and with Buckland that the six days were simply natural days of twenty-four hours each".

**Charles Hodge, *Systematic Theology* vol. 1 (1871), pp. 570-571, 573** (CCEL `hodge/theology1.iv.x.vi.html`, `Page_` anchors):  "It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other." (pp. 570-571).  "The Church has been forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science." (p. 573).

**Warfield, "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race," *Princeton Theological Review* 9 (1911) 1** (`sources/papers/warfield-1911_antiquity-and-unity-of-the-human-race.md`, before the `[[p.2]]` marker):  "The question of the antiquity of man has of itself no theological significance.  It is to theology, as such, a matter of entire indifference how long man has existed on earth."

**Scofield Reference Bible (1917), note 2 on Genesis 1:1** (IA-djvu `scofieldreferenc00unse`):  "The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages."  The 1909 first edition was not obtained;  the 1917 wording is quoted.

**William Jennings Bryan, Scopes trial, seventh day, 20 July 1925** (*The World's Most Famous Court Trial*, Cincinnati: National Book Co., 1925, p. 298;  IA-djvu `worldsmostfamous0000john`, OCR page markers "298" and "299" bracket the exchange):  "Q -- Do you think the earth was made in six days?  A -- Not six days of twenty-four hours.  Q -- Doesn't it say so?  A -- No, sir."

**Ronald Numbers, *The Creationists* (1992)** (IA-pd `creationists00numb_0`;  JSIA map leaf = page + 24 up to leaf 212, then + 40):  p. 17 (leaf 41):  "Thus far our survey of post-Darwinian creationist opinion ... has failed to turn up a single scientist or cleric who rejected the antiquity of the earth, denied the progressive nature of the fossil record, or attached geological significance to the Noachian flood."  p. 44 (leaf 68):  "As for the meaning of Genesis 1, Bryan had long held to the day-age theory."  p. 45 (leaf 69):  William Bell Riley "insisted that there was not 'an intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the earth was made six thousand years ago; and the Bible never taught any such thing.'"  p. 189 (leaf 229):  Whitcomb devoted his dissertation "to answering Ramm and defending 'the position of George M. Price.'"

## The long-day-fathers claim

**Hugh Ross, "Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days"**, as hosted at `evidenceforchristianity.org/biblical-evidence-for-long-creation-days-by-hugh-ross-ph-d/` (curl, 2026-09-04):  "Many of the early church fathers and other Biblical scholars interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time.  The list of such proponents includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few."

**Hugh Ross, *Creation and Time* (NavPress 1994)** (IA-pd `creationtimebibl0000ross`;  JSIA map leaf = page + 2 across all 186 numbered leaves):  p. 17 (leaf 19):  "Josephus, in writing a survey of the Genesis creation days, noted the need to explain the meaning of the expression 'one day' and promised to offer an explanation, but he never fulfilled his promise.  His comments suggest that he did not find this expression either easy or straightforward to interpret."  p. 18 (leaf 20):  Justin Martyr "and Irenaeus (c AD 130-200) used Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 as the support for their view that the creation days were each a thousand years long."  p. 19 (leaf 21):  "Lactantius (c AD 250-325), Victorinus of Pettau, and Methodius of Olympus, all concurred with Justin Martyr's and Irenaeus' view of the creation days as thousand-year epochs."  p. 19 (leaf 21):  "Neither could the seventh day be twenty-four hours, according to Origen."  p. 24 (leaf 26):  "A majority of those who wrote on the subject rejected the concrete interpretation of the Genesis creation days as six consecutive twenty-four-hour periods.  However, since so many of the writings of the early Christian leaders have been lost, care must be used in drawing any conclusions based on statistics."  No paragraph mentioning Aquinas was returned for the whole book.

**John Millam, "Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers' Perspective on Genesis, Part 1 (of 5)," Reasons to Believe, 8 September 2011** (`reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5`, curl;  the page's byline reads "By John Millam  Published: September 8, 2011"):  "Ross' earliest statements claim that Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas taught that the creation days were long periods of time, which Mook rejects as incorrect.  In later books, Ross has backed away from many of those claims ... Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years.  In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century."

**Davis A. Young, *Christianity and the Age of the Earth* (Zondervan 1982)** (IA-pd `christianityageo00youn`;  JSIA map leaf = page + 4 across all 181 numbered leaves;  anchored twice against independent citations:  Lavallee 1989 cites p. 20 for the "ordinary days" sentence, which is leaf 24, and Sarfati cites p. 22 for the "absolutely no one" sentence, which is leaf 26):  p. 13:  "until the end of the eighteenth century, Christians were virtually unanimous in the belief that the Earth was about six thousand years old according to the teaching of Scripture."  p. 19:  "The virtually unanimous opinion among the early Christians until the time of Augustine was that human history from the creation of Adam to the birth of Christ had lasted approximately fifty-five hundred years.  It is also very probable that the age of the world was regarded as the same number of years, for the writings of the church fathers generally do not reveal any sharp distinction between the initial creation and the creation of man."  p. 20:  "In general, the church fathers regarded the days of creation as ordinary days corresponding to our existing sun-measured, solar days.  Yet they did not shy away from regarding the days in a more figurative or allegorical sense either."  p. 20:  "The church fathers also suggested that the world was less than six thousand years old at the time of Christ because of the chronology of the genealogical accounts of Genesis 5 and 11".  p. 20 (leaf 24, re-read 2026-09-05):  "They did not believe that the creation had taken place over six millennia but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation."  Bradshaw ch. 3 prints this as "over six thousand years, but that";  the article uses Young's wording.  p. 22:  "We find absolutely no one arguing that the world is tens of thousands of years old on the grounds that the six days are used figuratively for indefinite periods of time.  Not even Origen (185-254), who came closest to holding the great antiquity of the Earth, maintained such a view. ... Basil explicitly spoke of the day as a twenty-four-hour period."  p. 23:  "Augustine initiated the view that the first three days were not ordinary days. ... Thus he opened the door for an understanding of Genesis 1 that would allow for an Earth that is much older than six thousand years".  Eric's notes give p. 19 for the p. 20 sentence;  the leaf map corrects it.

**Jack P. Lewis, "The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation," *JETS* 32/4 (1989) 433-455** (etsjets.org PDF, image-only, OCR'd with tesseract):  p. 433:  "The hallowing of the seventh day (Gen 2:1-2) presupposes the literal character of the six days.  Primarily interested in declaring the power of God, the writer of Genesis would have known nothing of the millennia now assumed by geologists and paleontologists."  p. 442 (on Augustine):  "The days are not to be taken as succeeding one another in time.  The contrast is not between solar days of twenty-four hours and unlimited aeons or ages.  Time is not involved at all."  p. 444:  "the school of Antioch was contending for literal interpretation."  p. 446:  Severian of Gabala's six homilies "came down under Chrysostom's name.  He applies a literal interpretation to the OT";  Basil:  "I take it all in a literal sense."  (Verifier 2026-09-05:  an earlier draft cited pp. 449-450 for these;  those pages are medieval and rabbinic.)

**Robert I. Bradshaw, *Creationism and the Early Church* (1999), ch. 3** (`robibradshaw.com/chapter3.htm`, read through the Wayback Machine `web/2024id_/` raw capture):  "Even those who rejected literal 24 hour days still believed in a young earth as Table 3.4 demonstrates.  Origen believed that the world was less than 10 000 years old and Clement thought it was still younger."  Summary page:  "The final result is not a wholesale endorsement of the young earth creationist position, but I hope, an accurate summary of diversity of opinion that existed during the formative centuries of Christianity."

**Forster and Marston, *Reason, Science and Faith* (Monarch 1999), p. 216** (IA-pd `reasonsciencefai0000mars`, leaf 218;  JSIA leaf = page + 2):  "So what reason does Luther give for savaging the views of his heroes Augustine and Hilary on the six days?  Basically that the account contains the language of time".

**Sarfati, "Jesus on the age of the earth," *Creation* 34(2) (2012)** (`creation.com/en/articles/jesus-age-earth`, curl):  "Jesus, speaking around 4,000 years after creation, was correct to say that Day 6, when humans were created, was effectively 'the beginning of creation' as seen from thousands of years later."

**Grudem, *Systematic Theology* (1994) 297, as quoted by Mortenson, *TMSJ* 18/1 (2007) 85** (tms.edu PDF, text layer):  "This argument also has some force, but old Earth advocates may respond that Jesus is just referring to the whole of Genesis 1-2 as the 'beginning of creation,' in contrast to the argument from the laws given by Moses that the Pharisees were depending on (v. 4)."

**Barr, *Biblical Chronology: Legend or Science?* (1987), p. 5** (`sources/papers/barr-1987_biblical-chronology-legend-or-science.md`):  "We have to distinguish between literal intention and historical, factual truth.  The figures are not, to us, historically, scientifically or factually true, but they were literally intended."