This will not be an in-depth look at the scholarship dealing with the reliability of the Genesis record from an historical standpoint, but instead more of a personal response to it. I was prompted to think about this because of a post a few days ago by John Barach, in which he offers a helpful look at the genealogies contained in the Old Testament, particularly the book of Genesis. His post is in response to what the Reformation Study Bible says in its commentary on Genesis 11:10-26:

As is common in ancient genealogies, it is apparent that this genealogy contains gaps. It if were precisely sequential, the events of chs. 9-11 would cover less than three centuries, all of Abraham’s ancestors would have been still living when he was born, and Shem would outlive Abraham by fourteen years. The purpose of this genealogy is to record the advances of the messianic line.

His response includes a number of challenges to this assertion, concluding with the argument that although this study Bible aligns itself with the heritage of the Reformation, this perspective is not at all in line with Reformation-era thought. Be sure to read his post.

I grew up in circles that held to the idea that the earth was "young" and created by God in a mature and developed state over the period of six literal days. I can remember when some theologians in my tradition began to teach that the earth, although created by God, was millions (or even billions) of years old and that there was a fairly significant degree of evolution at work in getting things to where they were today. They also taught that a day of creation was not a literal, 24-hour day, but was instead to be understood as an unquantified period of time. It was a divisive teaching. One church I was a member of as a child was in the process of getting new pew Bibles, the old ones having broken bindings causing the pages at the very front of the Bible to fall out. People joked that we should send those Bibles to a certain school that was advocating this new understanding of creation since they ignored the first few chapters of Genesis anyway.

I am glad to see that the strife over this has subsided to some degree over time. I have no issue with those who hold to differing perspectives on creationism. But I myself am fine with the traditional understanding. I have heard the arguments from both sides and I have been exposed to some of the critical scholarship that leads to skepticism about the historical validity of the first few chapters of Genesis. So far, my view has remained unchanged.

What it comes down to for me is that I have no reason to think that the creation days were any more than twenty-four hours. I have no reason to think that God did not create a mature earth about 10,000 years ago--in fact, in my eyes, that makes him all the more powerful and sovereign. It is not difficult for my mind to comprehend this. And, like John points out in his post, I have no reason to assume the chronological accounts in the Old Testament have gaps in them.