I recently posted an entry on this blog defending an old earth perspective on Genesis, particularly chapter one. In the comments thread pertinent to the post, a number of people have made some helpful and constructive criticisms of the arguments and positions I defend there. Here, I attempt to address these points.
One commenter — named Sam — lamented that there is even a need for debate, remarking that “It is a a grim truth that the only reason a theory like this must be created is that we as Christians can put too much weight in things outwith the Bible. A man or woman who is not a scientist will read these chapters without ever thinking that the word ‘day’ may mean ‘age’ or that the Sun may have been created well before it was mentioned. These ideas only come from attempting to rectify scientific theory and scripture, whilst placing an equal importance on each.”
This is an interesting point of concern. But my previous essay sought to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is fairly silent on the age of the earth. While one wants to properly read and understand all of what Scripture says, one does not want to fall into the trap of reading into the text what Genesis doesn’t say. Indeed, the fact that the church fathers struggled with several points of exegesis with regards Genesis 1 should be a source of reassurance that there are indeed genuinely difficult exegetical difficulties pertinent to the text, quite apart from considerations of science. To take one example, I showed in my previous entry that, regardless of what one thinks about the age of the biosphere (and the meaning of the days), it is extremely difficult to make a compelling case that Genesis 1-2 form a part of the first day. Indeed, the Scripture would seem to indicate otherwise, for all of the days begin with “And God said…”, a statement which we first read of in verse 3 of Genesis 1. If it is the case that day 1 begins in verse 3, then an unspecified period of time may have elapsed between God’s creation of “the heavens and the earth” and the first day. Such an interpretation is simply derived from a careful reading of the text, and is not motivated by scientific concerns.
Michael Boling similarly raised concerns regarding the issue of pre-Fall death. On this, I would make a couple of points. First, there is the issue that I noted previously — while one wants to be sure to see all of what the text says, one doesn’t want to see what the text doesn’t say. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that animal death is a consequence of the Fall. Even in Romans 5, which is the most commonly cited chapter regarding the Fall and its consequences, we are told (verse 12) that “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. [emphasis added]” So the context of Romans 5 pertains to human death, and not animal death. Another verse which we are often given is Genesis 1:29-30, in which we read, “Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.’” This is taken to imply that all of life was herbivorous. But it seems that such an interpretation is going beyond what the text itself actually says. The text does not say that animals were created to be herbivorous. It says they were given the green plants for food: It doesn’t tell us that plants were their exclusive diet. Michael Boling directs our attention to Romans 8:22, in which we read that “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”Again, however, the presumption that animal death did not precede the Fall is reading into the text what is not made explicit.
Another complaint made by Michael Boling is that, “we are looking forward to the new heavens and the new earth when all things will be restored to perfection.” With this I agree. But my view of the new creation is that it will not only be restored to its original condition. But that it will also be made better than the original Creation: That is to say, it will be restored and more! In light of such an understanding, I am also inclined to find this argument similarly unpersuasive.
In my previous entry, I also showed that Adam and Eve did not die, as God had said they would, on the day that they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Instead, they went on to live a full life afterwards. This is suggestive that something beyond natural death is in view here. And, indeed, “death” is often used as a metaphor in Scripture for spiritual separation from God. For example, Ephesians 2 speaks of us as having formerly beeg “dead in [our] transgressions and sins.” So I have no trouble understanding the Fall as incurring spiritual separation from God or “spiritual death”. But even if we do grant that the consequence of the Fall was physical — and not just spiritual — death for mankind, the point does nothing to prove that the earth (or even the general biosphere) is very young.
When I linked to my posting on facebook, a friend of mine complained about my interpretation, in the context of Hebrews 4, of day 7 — the day of God’s rest — as extending to the present time, remarking that “I can’t believe you explained it that way.” But this interpretation seems quite plausible to me. Hebrews 4 states that “his works have been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘On the seventh day God rested from all his works.’” They further complained about my interpretation of the Flood, making the following arguments:
- Water seeks its level
- The rainbow is representative of God’s promise never to send such a Flood again (but there have been “local” Floods since Noah).
- Why build an Ark (rather than having Noah simply leave the area)?
Point one only works if you assume that the Flood was reaching over the highest mountains, a point which I critiqued in my previous post by noting that the word translated “mountain” (har) in our English Bibles is a general term referring to any geologic relief, from a small hill up to a towering peak. So the text is quite ambiguous as to just how deep the waters were. The second point similarly fails if you take the view (as I do) that the Flood was universal with respect to its impact on human civilisation. It wiped out all of humanity save for those who were onboard the Ark. And, indeed, no such Flood ever since has done such a thing. The third point is slightly more difficult, but it is possible that God wanted to use the Ark as a prototype of Christ (the story is dripping — no pun intended — with Christological symbolism). It is also possible that He wanted to give the repentant sinner opportunity until the last minute to board the vessel, and it would have taken time to escape the vicinity of the Flood.
I would like to thank those who made interesting and constructive comments and criticisms. It is my view that this issue ought not become a divisive issue or a ‘hill to die on’ among believers. There are conservative evangelical exegetes standing on both sides of the issue. And this should encourage us to respect the views of our fellow Christian brethren who have labored diligently to come to terms with these matters.
The statement that “A man or woman who is not a scientist will read these chapters without ever thinking that the word ‘day’ may mean ‘age’ …” is simply, factually wrong.
Augustine of Hippo, the great 5th century theologian, raised the question of the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1 and concluded that time does not matter to God, so the specific period of time meant by “day” in Genesis 1 is not known. He also observed that they cannot possibly refer to actual days since the celestial bodies we use to measure day and night were not created until the 3rd day in the Genesis account. He concludes,
Augustine was not a scientist; in fact, the rules of inquiry that we call “science” did not exist until more than 1,000 years after Augustine wrote. Nor was Augustine a skeptic with regard to the authority of scripture.
One may disagree with Augustine’s position, but to say that the ONLY possible source of questioning the periods of time in Genesis 1 are modern, naturalistic unbelief is just… dead wrong.
Let me add that no honest Bible interpreter who is familiar with the Hebrew language would attempt to force “yom” to mean “a 24 hour period” in every case. The Hebrew language is simply not that specific.
Consider how we use “day” in English. English is a remarkably precise language: We can easily say “day,” “hour,” “minute,” “second,” “millisecond,” and “nanosecond.” We can be very fine with our meanings.
And yet, even in English, “day” does not usually mean 24 hours. We use it to signify the daylight hours, varying from 12 to 18 hours by the time of year: “We want to get this done during the day, we don’t want to be working at night.” When we mention a workday, we usually mean 8 hours. Sometimes we mean a true solar day of 24 hours. But also, we use it casually to mean some unspecified time in the past or future: “There will come a day when we will see God face to face.” “I used to be an atheist, back in the day…” We’re not envisioning 24 hours when we say those things, we’re simply referring to a past or future point. Even we English-speakers use “day” fluidly.
Hebrew speakers did so even more, because they did not have the richness of detail that we English-speakers have. They only had words for day and evening. Their words had to serve multiple purposes. Their culture achieved this by painting word pictures. Assigning English-like precision to Hebrew words is simply wrong in every case. That’s not how Hebrew worked. That’s not even how English works.
So we see in Zechariah 14:9 a very common construction:
“Bayom hahu yiyeh adonai echad, oo’sh’mo echad.”
“On that day the Lord shall be one, and His name one.”
As with “back in the day” in English, this does not envision a 24-hour period, a 16-hour period, an 8-hour period, or the period of daylight. It simply means “a particular point in the future.” The attempt to force this to mean “24 hours” is simply wrong. Nobody familiar with the language would do it.
“The second point similarly fails if you take the view (as I do) that the Flood was universal with respect to its impact on human civilisation. It wiped out all of humanity save for those who were onboard the Ark. And, indeed, no such Flood ever since has done such a thing.”
How can you on one hand point out that you don’t believe in evolution and on the other say that all of the creatures of the earth were destroyed in a flood? With all of the variety of creatures on this planet we know that there never was, nor will there ever be, a ship large enough to hold all of them. How do you square this with doubting evolution? Only so many critters could have been aboard a boat. Where did the rest come from? If it didn’t wipe out all of the animals too, then what was the point of taking any onboard?
(Skip to the bottom to see my one main question)
So…
My biggest problem is the timeline with science…. While it’d be awesome to just read and interpret the Bible in a vacuum, it doesn’t exist by itself.
When was/were the ice age/s? Did the dinosaurs go extinct in the garden? Was Adam really the age the Bible said he was?
Basically you believe the earth is 4 billion years old but people have only been here 4,000? Or is the Bible just kidding when it gives the ages of the humans?
“And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.”
“My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
That doesn’t sound as ambiguous as you make it seem…
Also, since you don’t like the idea of animals being “recreated,” were their rainbows before the flood? God said, “It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud”
Every cloud has a rainbow, just like God said. So were their clouds before the flood? Did it not rain for 4 billion years? What about the grand canyon?
To clarify, were their rainbows before the flood? Or did God just recreate the properties of water?
Also, when was the last Pangea? Before of after Adam named the animals? So did he name all of them, or do we apply your view, that he just named whatever was in the immediate area? You know, like the flood was just were Noah happened to be, and when Revelation says a third of the trees will be burned, it probably just means a third of the trees in populated areas right? I mean, the Bible never really says what it means… There is nothing specific there. I mean Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth and the life, but he really mean one of the ways, part of the truth and a type of life… Surely he didn’t mean the ONLY way… Dang, I sure wouldn’t want to ADD THAT IN and start telling people Jesus was the only way, that would make me look dumb! Thanks for helping me there!
Ok, but seriously, when does the Bible become readable by anyone? If we have to know the languages and the cultures, should I be telling people to read it?
I mean, God said “Thou shalt not kill” and did told the Israelites to kill… So obviously NOT LITERAL. And you already pointed out then God said Adam would die and didn’t… Well He wasn’t being literal… Duh. I mean the Bible is a big joke… Right? I mean Genesis says six days, morning and evening, but it doesn’t mean that… Obviously. And when it gives the ages of humans up to Noah, it doesn’t mean those are actual YEARS, it’s just saying “this guy was old and this guy was really old.” I mean, who keeps track of days or years anyway?
God WAS being literal when he said they would die when they ate of the forbidden fruit. Humans ARE dead. Why would we need Jesus THE LIFE if we’re already alive? I mean, come on dumb Jesus! Trying to trick me! Saying I need life, when look! Here I am, totally alive… I mean, dumb Jesus right? What a trickster!
Look, you’re trying to say, “let’s just look at the Bible, apart from anything else and figure out if the earth is young or old!” Well why not ask the Jews what they think… Of wait… Don’t they have a calender or something that says the earth is… Of I don’t know… 5,772 years… But they probably just MADE THAT UP for fun! Silly Jews! You’d think at least they’d understand their own scriptures! Well we’ll show them! We should put them in concentration camps and make them concentrate of the TRUTH–The Bible is JUST KIDDING you dumb Jews! Haha, silly!
And obviously when the writer of Genesis went to great length to to tell us everything died in the flood, the humans, cows, creeping things (why he even says every breathing thing), he was REALLY trying to say, everything in the area at the time. I’m so glad you cleared that up for us!
Obviously kangaroos Bison weren’t in that list when he said that all life was destroyed… I mean, they were in America and Australia! I don’t know about Australia, but we got some big ol’ mountains here in the USA and I’m sure now act of God could ever cover those bad boys! Whew no way!
What in your mind keeps you from thinking God can flood the entire earth?
Again, when was Pangaea? What formed the mountains and valleys if there was no rain? If there was rain did God recreate water’s properties to make EVERY cloud have a rainbow? When God said, “I set My rainbow in the cloud” He probably really meant, “now when you see the rainbow that you’ve always seen, but now I’m giving it a new meaning…”?
Where is Eden?
You do understand that for any issue in the Bible there is a group of people who take it whatever way? Like with Jesus’ death, there are those that say he just passed out! Or with crossing the Red Sea, it was only a marsh! And so on and so on….
I mean, God didn’t really knock down Jericho did he? And Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t really get destroyed. Oh and my personal favorite, the Bible NEVER says homosexuality is a sin! Haha! Here we are all this time thinking it was wrong for a man to have sex with a man, but we’d just miss interpreted it and taken it out of context! And one of the guys saying this is super smart, with like degrees and everything! So obviously… homosexuality is not a sin
Good to know….
So if you were preaching, you’d stand up and say, “on the first 400,000,000 years God said let there be light! And there was! And that light was His Son!”? Or, “In the beginning was the word and the word was very slow…. It took a long time for Jesus to get the light from the stars all the way to the earth… I mean, God is a slow worker! So don’t expect that place Jesus is making you in Heaven to be finished when you get there! I mean, He’s gotta take a rest! And besides, when He said this was a rest and He wasn’t going to do anymore creating… Well He didn’t create the pillar of fire for the Israelites to follow, why it was already there! He didn’t create the tablet’s for the Law, No sir! Those tablets were there from day… I mean, 400,000,000 year one!”
I know a lot of this is not very… Uhm, logical arguments. But the point, I do hope is clear, is that you are destroying our ability to trust the Bible! Because, I can go online and find someone who knows the Bible very well telling me it’s ok to be homosexual, or it’s ok to have a lot of wives, or that Jesus isn’t the way, or that Jesus isn’t God’s son, or that evolution is true, or that Jesus already returned in 1916, or that all the miracles in the Bible are made up, or that Jesus wasn’t even a real person!
I know this might seem jumbled and confusing, but please understand that there is nothing in science that doesn’t support a young earth idea. And you seem to be saying that the Bible isn’t CLEAR on whether or not the earth is old or young, so to answer that question we’d have to look at science, and any honest scientist will know that there is nothing in science that contradicts a young earth. And that the MAIN reason science says the earth is old is BECAUSE OF EVOLUTION.
If you answer one thing, answer this: Can someone read the Bible and trust what it says, or do we have to have someone “smart” explain it to us?
Thanks!
Just seems like you’re saying the earth COULD be young… and the flood COULD be global… Right?
I Just have a really strong feeling that your goal isn’t to just read the Bible rightly, but it’s to reconcile something you believe in science with what the Bible says. I don’t think you’re being honest. I could be wrong, but I’ve never known an old earth creationist to not be motivated by something they believe about science.
And another thing I’d like to say is sorry if I seemed harsh in my post. I’ve not been like that ever on the Internet that I remember. But it really upsets me because your message is “make the Bible mean what you want.”
My own summing up of Luke’s responses are as follows: If you don’t believe the bible literally, then you’re just making things up. There is no way to say this part is literal, this part is allegory. You could say all of it is allegory, all of it.
Are miracles literal, would be a better summary. Well that, and stated facts.
Example, did Jesus die and become alive?
Example, are the ages of people in Genesis true?
So are miracles true, or are some fictitious? And are facts true, or are some false?
Allegory, metaphor, supposition etcetera… those of course are up for debate… But I don’t believe the creation is in this category because there is no reason someone reading about creation or the flood would suppose that the earth MUST be billions of years old or that the flood didn’t really flood everything or kill everything. The only way someone would come to those conclusions if if they had a presupposition that the earth was old. And someone would only have that idea if they bought into evolution’s lie.
The opening of Genesis can be poetic, but that doesn’t make it figurative. How else would you write that story? Just boring facts? I don’t think so.
But here is a key, if all scientific data works BETTER under a young earth + global flood model, why try to fit the Bible into an odd position of supporting evolution?
THE answer to the entire flow of discussions comes down to one question and one question alone. Did Jesus Christ conquer death through the intervention of God the Father? If Jesus rose from the dead then the Scriptures have been fulfilled and the entire book is stamped VALIDATED by God. There is little else to discuss.
I think using Jonathan’s way of interpreting the Bible we could easily come to the conclusion that Jesus didn’t die or rise… and that’s one of my problems with this.
Understand, but while these are interesting and worthy topics to discuss, I prefer to focus on the Main Event and then work backwards…
The evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming…..empty tomb, women as the 1st witnesses, dramatic transformation of 12 scared men, men who DIED (for a made up story???), Jesus’ brother dramtically changes his mind and several years later Paul’s conversion is astonishing, the prophesies fulfilled from the OT…the list is exhaustive…the point is not to win an argument but rather to know the TRUTH and further as Frank says you’re dead alot longer than you’re alive so you better get it right.
I will have to agree with Luke in that Jonathan’s assertions do not disprove the assertions made by those who disagreed with his attempt to find support for an old earth in the pages of Scripture. I state this based on several points.
First, I will address the statement made by Jonathan regarding the new heavens and the new earth. He stated “it will also be made better than the original Creation: That is to say, it will be restored and more!” Using that logic, which is a line of reasoning I also attest to based on a clear reading of Scripture, where I might ask is the presence of death before sin. If the new heavens and the new earth are a restoration “and more” of the original creation this would seemingly demand that since the new heavens and the new earth at the bare minimum are declared to be totally absent of death or even the hint of such a thing, that would require the absence of death in the original creation before sin. The more of the new heavens and the new earth is just additional “icing on the cake” with the starting point of death being done away with at it was originally intended.
In regards to the diet of the original nephesh chayyah, meaning both the animals and Adam and Eve, there are several elements that are left out of the response provided by Jonathan in his rejection of the position that the original diet was vegetarian. He calls for letting the text say what it says and nothing else so lets actually look closely at the context beginning with Genesis 1:28 and ending with verse 31:
Gen 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Gen 1:29: Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Gen 1:30: And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground–everything that has the breath of life in it–I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Gen 1:31: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day.
Verses 28-29 refer to the creation of the first man Adam. Notice verse 29 clearly states God told Adam ” “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” If we are to let the text speak for itself, it clearly notes plants and fruit were given as food. If meat was on the menu, would not the text state that?
Let us move on to the animal kingdom. God declared to the entire nephesh chayyah animal kingdom (meaning those with the breath of life in them) they too were given “every green plant for food.” Verse 29 finishes with the phrase “and it was so” declaring that what God had just stated actually took place as he stated. Nothing more, nothing less. Noted OT scholars Keil and Deliztsch aver “From this it follows, that, according to the creative will of God, men were not to slaughter animals for food, nor were animals to prey upon one another; consequently, that the fact which now prevails universally in nature and the order of the world, the violent and often painful destruction of life, is not a primary law of nature, nor a divine institution founded in the creation itself, but entered the world along with death at the fall of man, and became a necessity of nature through the curse of sin.”
Verse 31 completes this opening chapter of Scripture with “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day.” Some old earth types claim Genesis 1 never declares God’s original creation to be perfect, just good or very good. However, if one actually looks at the essence of what the words good and very good mean in Hebrew, it is quite evident the original creation was indeed perfect and operated according to the design and purpose for which God intended it to operate. The Hebrew word used for good is towb which, according to noted OT scholars Keil and Delitzsch means “God saw his work, and behold it was all very good, i.e. everything was perfect in its kind, so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the Creator…By the application of the term “good” to everything that God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis “very” at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied, and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days’ work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it.”
The impact of sin was cosmic in that it impacted man and the creation to include all of creation. Paul declares that as such in Romans. It is only when Scripture is viewed through the presupposition of evolutionary dogma which demands the existence of death and decay over a span of millions of years that concepts such as animal death before sin can be developed or accepted as possible. Such a view is not inherent in the text of Genesis nor the rest of Scripture.
The notion that yom is not a literal 24 hour period of time is another lengthy discussion which I will refrain from engaging in at this time. I will submit that it is the influence of millions of years which has led some to attribute the days of Genesis to being something other than what they were understood to mean in the context of Genesis 1-2. Furthermore, it is only with Genesis 1-2 that people for some reason lose their exegetical mindset in regards to understanding when a day is a day and when it isn’t. Jonah is not believed to have been in the belly of the whale for 3000 or 3 million years. The Israelites were not believed to have walked around Jericho for 3 million years. Both of these events merely have the word day associated with them. The days of Genesis have evening/morning, a number and then the word day. That is three times the amount of evidence for a literal day than other instances in Scripture have where everyone accepts the events as taking place within the space of a 24 hour period of time. Some have said that Genesis does not say the days were 24 hour days but the texts of Jonah and the whale and the Israelites and Jericho for example are clear. Really? Evening/morning, number, day. How much more clear could God have been?
Strange indeed that is only when “modern science” says Scripture can’t possibly be correct that we dismiss what Genesis says as being literally true.
I submit this as my humble analysis of God’s word. God bless and I hope such conversations can continue in this irenic and thoughtful manner.
Mr. Boling,
What you have given here is interesting; however my question still stands. Adam named the animals and with the names given, in Hebrew, have meanings such as “violent” or “to lacerate” for lion and eagle (according to Strong’s interpretation), so why would names such as these be given to benevolent creatures?
Another point I’d wish to make is; since you’re attempting to falsify evolution it seems that you are actually proving evolution in a sense. Certain animals would have needed to develop canine teeth as well as severely alter their physical make up to accomidate such a drastic change in diet.
If you are saying that these animals were created the way they are now then, at least to me, it seems that their very nature proves there was death before the fall. If you’re saying that there was absolutely no death before the fall then, again at least to me, you may be suggesting some evolutionary process that alters these animals physically and psychologically.
My actual point in this is simply that figurative truth is no less true than literal truth. Jesus used parables; but that doesn’t mean He was lying. Seriously, if you look at the three days in the tomb as literal based on our 24 hour clock then you’d find yourself in a pickle because from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning isn’t exactly 72 hours.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Bible is true, inerrant from Genesis through Revelation, but this doesn’t mean that everything was intended to be taken as absolutely literal.
2Pe 3:8 ~ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
“if you look at the three days in the tomb as literal based on our 24 hour clock then you’d find yourself in a pickle because from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning isn’t exactly 72 hours. ”
Yeah except that there was an extra day added to the week. It’s a high sabbath. Jesus was crucified on our Thursday.
So I guess I did contradict myself a little in my question of “what can a lay person understand?”
Though, I will say that the majority of non-Jewish Christians still believe in Jesus’ three day burial even though they don’t know there is an extra day added it that week.
Real quick on animals eating animals in the garden, I don’t have a problem with it philosophically, but it sure does take away the meaning when God killed to make the skins to cover their sin… And, watch a nature documentary, Like Disney’s Africa Cats, do you really think their was that fear and fighting in the garden? And animals now fight humans, why not Adam and Eve in the 700,000 years they were hanging out in the garden? This isn’t really an argument to respond to because it could be easy to reason this stuff, but for this specifically, it just don’t “feel” right.
A Question on another blog:
“‘I was just reading through Exodus (really for the first time in my Christian life) and God says Himself that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Which is why the Sabbath was supposed to be holy to the Jews. If God states that he only needed 6 days to created both the heaven and the earth then why are people still arguing for an old-Earth creation theory??’
~Kristi
Kristi,
that’s just the point. God did say it. “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy … for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and all that in them is.” (Exodus 20:8,11a) The Ten Commandments … is the only part of the Bible that God wrote — Himself! He didn’t use a scribe or a preacher or a even a prophet or an oracle. He wrote it Himself! So why are peopel still arguing for an Old-Earth creation theory?
Fear of Man … is the answer. I go with, “Let God be true and every man a liar.” And y’know … that’s majorly the way it usually works out, anyway. You can trust the Bible. Some theories may go against it. But the science data never will.
Yours, Dr J
Posted by Dr. Jackson”
Just for Flood fun….
“POINTS OF ORIGINS with Dr. Charles Jackson
Mitochondrial DNA from goat bones carbon14-dated at 7000 yrs old (fix C-14 error ? 4300 yrs) and DNA from living goats (10/06 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) proved that all goats today, are from five ancient females (mitoDNA only tracks females) … and all sheep today, are from three or four females. Noah saved seven pairs of each “clean” species. Then right after the Flood, made sacrifices from each of the clean ones. The new data means … he mighta killed two of the seven she-goats, and three or four of the seven ewes. Interesting! The similar number of DNA lines (goats & sheep) made Smithsonian evo’s say, “this suggests sheep and goats moved together, as they do today.” (Science News, 10/14/06, p245) Whaddya know — evo-research even confirms the New Testament red-letter words of Jesus! How will they be helpin’ us next !? Keep thinking. Dr J “
No one responded to Jon on the other blog post….
Charles,
I fail to see how adaptation within a species, a position fully supported by YECs provides support for evolutionary dogma which demands macroevolution (i.e. from goo to you by way of the zoo). So what if certain animals developed the ability within their species to be carnivores after the fall. How is that support of evolution? Additionally, just because an animal originally perhaps had canine teeth does not necessarily imply such teeth had to be used carnivorously. Panda bears have canine teeth yet their diet consists largely of bamboo and other plants.
I would recommend reading the following articles for further insight into the biblical concept of the original perfect of creation before the fall and the impact of sin on all of creation to include humanity and animals.
Article:
- http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v5/n2/diet
Additionally, parables were used in order for the hearer to more readily understand theological concepts within their particular sitz im leben or life setting. As noted by author and theologian John Goldingay, “Even when a parable somersaults into a fantastic world, it is a fantastic that remains a fantastic of the everyday, without the supernatural, as it appears in fairy tales or myths.” With that said, despite the accepted allegorical nature of parables, literal truth could still be ascertained by the hearer as the parables relayed issues of vast theological importance in a manner understood within the realm of every day life by the hearer. Parables relayed kingdom truths.
The usage of 2 Peter 3:8 as support for an old earth is what I would call the “giant hermeneutical leap of all time.” This verse has nothing to do with asserting a time period to Genesis 1-2 of creation being longer than 6 literal days. In fact, this verse is a restatement of Psalm 90:4 with both verses speaking to God’s omnipotence. 2 Peter 3:8 in particular addresses false prophets who were questioning the validity of Christ’s return given he had not yet returned as immediately as some anticipated. To utilize such a verse as proof of figurative language as not be taken literally misunderstands the historical nature of the Genesis 1-2 account as well as the clear meaning and context of what the Psalmist and Peter were addressing.
Mr. Boling,
Thank you for the articles and your insights. I am no scholar by any measure; in fact, in the words of Mr. Luke, I am just a lay person. I still have a little trouble with YEC, however I am not ruling it out. I’m kind of on the fence with it, still. This leads me to continue with the fact that at the end of the day it is ony Christ that matters. I am not real comfortable with dissention in the Body; but I do welcome healthy discussion because Iron does sharpen Iron.
So I’ll say that I understand 2 Peter 3:8 in the same light you have explained, but it was still mentioned, so can it not be taken as fact that to G-D one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day? Because this verse was used contextually different from Genesis 1 doesn’t necessarily lessen it’s reality does it? Verse 9 of 2 Peter 3 tells us that “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise…”, so obviously time is of no concequence to Him, but only to us.
Now that I am thinking about it; I would say that this seems to only make this kind discussion trivial within the Body of Christ….
Mr. Boling,
Thanks again for the articles. So far, I’ve reviewed the first from Creation Ministries. What I have found interesting in particular was YEC view of death as being evil. From my understanding, I don’t see how death or any act, in and of itself, can be inherently evil or good. Murder, on the other hand, is entirely different. The same goes for fornication, lying envy and every other sin.
Continued,
These sins all have to do more with the intent of the action. For instance; I don’t believe G-D can contradict His own nature, so for Him to eradicate nations as He did in the OT would mean He was murderous presupposing that death was evil. G-D is certainly not murderous since He is sinless.
With this perspective it seems perfectly plausible for G-D to see His creation as “Very Good” even though His natural order included death. I don’t think this line of thinking contradicts Scripture. In fact I think it supports it seeing how this world will eventually pass away and G-D will create a new Heavens and a new Earth.
Well saying if God kills then God is evil so death must be God’s definition of “good” (I love when.my pets die! It is good) is the same falacy universal reconciliationists make by saying, “God has to fit our understanding of justice, love and good/evil, so there could be no hell because hell=unloving, unjust and evil.”
We don’t necessarily understand His ways. And He told us that right out too.
Like I said, though, I don’t necessarily have a problem with death in the garden, but it is hard to watch some things in nature and call them good. In my opinion.
To Charles,
Did Adam speak Hebrew? We don’t know that, do we?
Mr. Luke,
I doubt Adam spoke Hebrew, but the OT was written in Hebrew.
I am not saying that death is good or bad, inherently. The point is, aside from human emotion, that death serves a purpose whether we want to admit it or not. Also, think about entropy; everything will eventually degrade and pass away. Is this because of the fall? Do you think for one second that G-D didn’t know what he was doing? You don’t suppose He didn’t know Adam would disobey do you?
As best as I can tell, the best the old earthies have is that the wording and so on of Genesis leaves the idea that the Earth COULD be old. But I don’t think any of them are saying it HAS to be because of what the Bible says.
So we’d have to look at science…. or other parts of the Bible (which we have some). But I really like how Jon showed the definition of Day in Genesis one (on the other Blog post) and how that girl who was just READING the Bible found God say right out, I created the earth in six days so you guys only work six.
Issue settled.
What about the geneology from Adam??? Screams of young earth to me!
If God could create Adam with age, couldn’t He create the universe with age???