Abstract
The Big Bang model of the Universe enjoys vast support in scientific circles, but it is denied, ignored, or reviled by most young-Earth creationists. The major objection is that young-Earth creationists do not believe the Universe is billions of years old as claimed by Big Bang advocates. Their view stems from the belief that the Bible teaches that the Universe was created in six literal days just a few thousand years ago. Some young-Earth creationists have attempted to devise alternative explanations to the Big Bang within the framework of conventional science. Others have invented non-conventional scientific theories to explain the evidence in a young-Earth framework. So far, neither approach has succeeded, but the lack of successful explanations has not stymied attempts to assimilate the evidence in an acceptable, young-Earth model. A recent effort to synthesise scientific and Biblical data on cosmology is by D. Russell Humphreys in his book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. It is not our purpose to examine the scientific merits of Humphreys' thesis. Rather, we will evaluate Humphreys' 'Timothy test', which is his term for a straightforward, face-value approach to Biblical interpretation upon which he grounds his model. In this paper we will show that the 'Timothy test' fails to provide an adequate basis for Biblical interpretation. Further, we will illustrate by examples how application of the 'Timothy test' leads to erroneous conclusions about the Bible's teaching, thereby undermining the inerrancy of Scripture that Humphreys attempts to uphold. As such, the 'Timothy test' provides no support for Humphreys' cosmology and should be rejected.