A lot of really bad teaching fills the Christianity and Science space — on both sides. On the Christian side, most of the bad teaching comes from ignoring the Bible’s teaching about science.
For example, the scriptures plainly teach us that God reveals himself through his creation.
(Act 14:17 ESV) 17 “Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”
(Rom 1:19-20 ESV) 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Psa 19:1-3 ESV) The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
(Psa 50:6 ESV) 6 The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge! Selah
Bible students speak of “special revelation” and “general revelation.” Special revelation is the Bible, in which God reveals himself to his people. General revelation is God’s creation, which reveals the nature and character of God, just as this blog reveals something about me as its creator even if I say nothing about myself.
Another form of general revelation, which we’ll get to later, is the human mind, also made by God and reflecting his character.
These revelations, properly understood, cannot contradict each other because all come from God. Nor may we pick one to dominate over the other, because Paul told the Romans people are accountable to God because of what they learn from the creation. If the creation is the realm of Satan, filled with falsehoods about God, that would hardly be a fair claim.
One popular argument is that God made the earth to appear old, just as he created Adam fully grown. And, obviously, that’s entirely possible. God could have done that if he’d wanted to.
The argument is entirely undisprovable scientifically. When we see stars in our telescopes more than 6,000 light years away, we can argue that God created the light from the stars in transit. And he could have.
But if God made a universe that appears 13.8 billion years old, has he revealed himself truly? Imagine that Adam was not only created as an adult but as an adult with healed broken bones from injuries that never happened and scars from accidents he never had. His body would tell a story that just isn’t true.
Well, the universe tells a story. With telescopes, we can look far into the past, and if the universe were created in 4000 BC, then the story told by the universe would not be true. Just so, as we explore the geologic layers and dig up the fossils, the earth itself tells a story — which would not be true if the earth is only 6,000 years old.
All sorts of arguments are put forward to explain fossils to avoid letting the earth tell a story of being ancient. Some argue that Satan put them there to tempt us. The scriptures disagree.
Some argue that the fossils are random formations that just happen to look like dinosaur bones — in so much detail that we can see where their nerves ran along and through the bones. I’ve seen enough fossils in person to know better.
Some argue that the dinosaurs existed between Adam and the Flood, and died in the Flood. The Bible disagrees —
(Gen 6:19 ESV) 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.
Dinosaurs were living things of flesh — and would have been on the ark. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.
For a while, the Institute for Creation Research argued that certain fossil footprints showed human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints, but closer study debunked that theory and most creation scientists now concede the point.
One paleontologist gives the history of the claims and their debunking —
I had for years invited the leaders of ICR on several past occasions to revisit the sites and restudy the evidence, but now decided to send many recent photographs, site diagrams, and other documentation in order to illustrate the full extent of evidence against the past claims.
In response, John Morris [son of Henry Morris] of ICR [Institute for Creation Research], Paul Taylor (now running the film company founded by his deceased father, Stan), and other company representatives, accepted my invitation to join me at the sites in October of 1985. While I pointed out to them the various metatarsal dinosaur tracks at the Alfred West site, and their similar but largely infilled counterparts at the Taylor Site, Morris and Taylor expressed concern that they had made serious errors in the past.Taylor stated that he would stop circulating Footprints in Stone, and Morris indicated that he would probably stop selling his book. Although they insisted on uncovering some Taylor Site tracks under water and mud along the north bank (which we were able to view using an aquarium pushed through the water), they afterward agreed that all the tracks viewed at the site showed evidence of dinosaurian origin. We also reviewed the “man tracks” at the Baugh sites, which Morris and Taylor did not defend, and discussed the State Park Shelf markings (considered erosional features by most), which they did not feel worth revisiting. I then asked Taylor and Morris if they could point to any markings, anywhere in the Paluxy, which they still believed to be human or even probable human footprints.They could not.
John Clayton, a geologist and member of the Churches of Christ, has long argued against young-earth creationism. For example, he points out that few fossils appear in flood deposits [very good article on his visit to the Grand Canyon]. Rather, the fossils are found from many sources other than a flood — based on the materials and geology of the fossil sites.
Hmm …
If the Bible says God reveals himself in the earth and stars, and if the earth and stars tell the story of an ancient planet in a more ancient universe, what does that teach us? But if the universe is that old, how do we reconcile that story with the story told in the Bible about the creation? Both are true. How can that be?
Oh, and if it’s true that God made the heavens and earth only 6,000 years ago but he made the earth look ancient — but ancient in a way that tells a story –shouldn’t we want to know and study and profit from a story told by God himself?
Therefore, whether you believe God made the world look old or God made a world that is now in fact old, either way, we are compelled to learn what God has to tell us from what he has made.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty comes when we decline to believe what the creation tells us, simply because it does not jibe with what we already think, THEN we castigate unbelievers for expressing the very same skepticism toward our presentation of the Bible.
Charles, you have just nailed it!
Jay, thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion.
A little humility goes a long way. We might be wrong in our interpretations of what we observe in the world around us. We might also be wrong about our understanding of God, or of what God said. God hasn’t revealed everything to us. (Deut 29:29). But we love to prove ourselves smarter than the other person. We’re just too full of ourselves.
Jay,
I appreciate your perspective. However, to present statements as though they are fact without supporting them via even the slightest reference to such documentation for each point calls on your readers to suspend reason and just accept your claims based upon an assumption that you have good supporting evidence for those claims. Since you do not seem to be a person who often accepts claims without some kind of reasoning to support the claims made, one can only deduce that you think your readership is either too advanced to need supporting evidence or else you want them to suspend reason in order to accept whatever YOU write. Is that your aim?
Surprised and a bit concerned at the evident hypocrisy, and wondering how to avoid seeing it as such,
Grizz
Jay,
Just wondering, who is the “one paleontologist” who had the encounter with John Morris and Paul Taylor? Is there a reason he is left unnamed? Or, if you did name him and I missed it, could you point that out to me?
Thanks,
Grizz
Grizz,
There is a link to the original article, which is much longer than the quoted material and will answer your question.
Grizz,
Just which facts do you consider as needing support? Are you asking for the evidence in support of an ancient universe?
good lord grizz poor old jay not doing a doctor-it dissertation….
🙂
rich
any way
anyone that doesn’t have somewhat of a handle on quantum machinists and micro biology,aint got no clue anyway.
i.e irreducible complexities of the cellular structure.and other’s…ALSO
partial physics.
IS STUCK IN A NEWTONIAN CONCEPT OF A WORLD 300 HUNDRED YEARS IN THE PAST
God is a God of miracles and violated the laws of physics many times. So before we get too cerebral don’t forget Jesus walking on water.
For example, the scriptures plainly teach us that God reveals himself through his creation.
ALSO DON’T FORGET HE MADE THE SUN STOP MOVING
skip
So before we get too cerebral
the stuff i am saying should be common knowledge.
for those that seek
the apple fell from the tree. 🙂 newton
a particle when observed will never be in the same place in that time
go figure ??? but true none the less
particle physics … reminds me of the SPIRIT OF GOD’S WORKINGS
SHOULD PUT
HE IS THERE INTUITIVELY BUT NOT IT IS FAITH
Rich,
Quantum mechanics is a window into the Logos but really hard to explain. Haven’t decided whether to cover in this series.
I took quantum mechanics (QM) at Ohio State and it simply explains that small particle behavior is much different than larger objects. Everything in QM is approached probabilistically. Thus Schrodinger’s wave equation, etc… We used a great QM book by David Park.
I saw nothing in QM that changed my concept of God but it does show that God works in nature in ways that we cannot deterministically predict. In other words, God can and will do things that our math cannot yet predict. So why are we stuck on the speed of light thing? Is God forced to obey his own laws of nature? If so, how come Jesus could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, … How come God made the sun go backwards, brought water out of a rock, parted the Red Sea…? Have we not learned by now that God can and will do things in creation that violate laws that we have discovered? I guess I don’t understand the argument that we now know God’s laws and surely God won’t ever violate his own laws. Believe it or not, sometimes God shows us things that are in violation of his creation.
It seems that some folks here think they have God all figured out. They don’t.
“The intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” (1 Cor 1:19)
Skip,
I’m confused. Who has suggested that God cannot violate the laws of nature? I have argued that, as the Bible teaches, the laws of nature teach us about God, who created them.
Jay, Not that I am settled on the arguments but it has seemed several have commented that the universe can’t be younger because then God would be inconsistent with his laws. Telescopes tell us one age and the Bible therefore can’t tell us a younger age. My quasi argument is that God could have miraculously sped up the creation process causing galaxies to be far apart and the distance wasn’t created by entirely natural laws and processes. It wouldn’t be the only time God has violated natural laws. Either I haven’t articulated this well or I need to rethink my comments.
This is the first article by Jay I’ve read in many months that I couldn’t LIKE. I don’t like at all to hear anyone say the Genesis account of creation is not accurate. I’ve been blessed recently to be able to watch and hear videos by a fast-talking Hovind of Florida (now in the penitentiary for not paying taxes he felt he didn’t owe) who supports the young-earth position with all kinds of proof. I think HE is right and everyone who disputes with Genesis is wrong. He convincingly explains why he thinks the earth is about 6,000 years old (as Genesis clearly says), and why dinosaurs were merely large “lizards” and water-based animals that lived in a different climate than has existed on earth since the flood.
I had pondered the fact that everyone lived long lives until the flood. His explanation makes sense of it for the first time in my long life. We sing the song, “Things are different now” in relation to being IN CHRIST than before. Hovind explains how life was different for those folks who lived such long lives. I think he’s right and those who quarrel with Genesis are altogether wrong no matter how they read the fossils. I suggest that any Christian seeking light on the age of the earth should read (in videos or however) the arguments suggested by Hovind to explain the fossils and every other manner of evidence about the time prior to the flood.
Once again we get the argument that God COULD have done such and such… That’s a terribly weak argument…. I wonder if we’d think it misleading if Jesus had actually been walking on rocks just underneath the water’s surface to make it APPEAR that He was walking on water… Why is it necessary to accept the KJV translation of the Hebrew word YOM if it is used to indicate a much longer period of time ?
Price, Moses used Yom in Genesis and Exodus. He meant a 24 hour day in Exodus. What did he mean in Genesis 1?
Skip, that he used the word and it’s long period of time definition in Genesis 1 doesn’t mean that he didn’t intend to use the word and it’s in Exodus with one of it’s other several definitions.. Funny thing about Hebrew, a single word can have many meanings. With all the evidence to suggest a very old earth, why should we contend for a 24 hour period when all available evidence suggests otherwise? What purpose does it serve to insist that God COULD have done something when all the real evidence indicates that He didn’t ? I don’t understand the loyalty to a position which has nothing whatsoever to support it and every supportable fact against it…
Skip,
Any word in any language can be used metaphorically. It’s not about definition. It’s about reading figures of speech as figures of speech.
Day = yom and is singular and refers to the entire creation, just described as occurring in 7 days. Obviously, there is no God-given rule that “yom” must refer to a single 24-hour period.
Skip,
I’ve discussed the common theory that God made the universe looking old. If someone wishes to accept that by faith, I have no complaint with them except that they should still study what the earth and the skies teach us about God, because God made it the way it is.
I cannot accept that position for reasons previously stated, and I’ve never had anyone even attempt to explain why God created a universe and planet that tell a story of being ancient. Could he? Of course, and no one here has said otherwise.
But what is not reasonably disputable is that the earth appears to be very old. If God made it look that way, fine, but it still looks old and tells a complex, detailed story of its history.
YE creationists argue every side of the position — that the earth was made to look old, like Adam; that the earth doesn’t really look old; that science backs up a young earth; and that science is corrupt, closed-minded, and unreliable.
I find that YE creationists are rarely willing to state a position and stick with it. Rather, the tendency is to change positions as arguments are presented. If you doubt me, ask the readers who comment and favor a young earth position to state a position on one of those issues.
Hence, the tiresome tendency of YE creationist argument is to be entirely negative — pointing out problems with science and secular humanism and theistic evolution, etc.
But when I ask: Name a scientific proof that the earth is only 6,000 years old, no such proof is forthcoming.
But as I said, if as a matter of faith someone insists on a young earth that God made to look old, it can’t be disproven. But it’s not science. It’s a type of faith. Which is fine. Just don’t wrap yourself in the claim of science.
Now notice this carefully. Why do Young Earth advocates insist that science backs their claim? Why is this important? Why not just say, as a matter of faith, God made an old-looking earth? Well, they’ve bought into the Modernist assumption that science is the ultimate test of truth — all the while denying it.
To me, there are two reasonable positions:
1. By faith I believe the earth is young and made to look old by God. This is not based on science but faith. But because God made it all, we should study it and learn about God from what he has made.
2. I cannot accept 1 because God cannot lie. Therefore, the ancient appearance of the universe and earth is true — just as the Bible is true. There are many suggested ways to reconcile Gen 1 with the evidence, and it’s not important which one is right — just that a reconciliation is possible.
Skip wrote,
I’m still working on the comments, but I’ve not seen that argument. What I have seen is the argument that the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is that the earth is ancient. And I think that’s true. And I’ve read a LOT of YE creationist literature. The evidences of an ancient universe and planet are still there.
For the record, I am not stuck on a 6 day creation. Although it does trouble me that God commanded the Jews to work 6 days and rest on the seventh and it is not a figure of speech but the 6 days of creation, where God talked about evening and morning for each day, is a figure of speech. This is the big argument from the young earth movement.
Just asking questions to understand.
Genesis 1:4-5 says he created light, separated it from darkness, and created the first day. Did he create light *during* the first day, or did that start after he separated light from darkness? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But it seems possible that quite a bit of creation happened before the chronology of days started.
Genesis 1 says that God made plants on the third day. And he made the sun and moon and stars on day 4. That’s a real head-scratcher, if you’re treating these as normal chronological days as we experience them. How did those plants live without the sun?
There is at least one way to reconcile these apparent time-line contradictions. God exists outside of time – after all, he is eternal. Maybe God was traveling along a different time line from the one in which we live during creation, and the six days belong to that other time line. Physics tells us that space and time are part of the same substance. So it seems pretty evident that God created time itself. God wasn’t standing in our time line when he created it. He existed “before” time was created.
That explanation has the additional advantage that it renders moot the debate about the age of the earth.
Whether or not there is any element of truth in that explanation, I’m placing my bet that the Genesis account is 100% accurate, when correctly understood. And I’m ok with waiting for the explanation until we all meet God.
I have a doctorate in the hard sciences. Thus, I had to reconcile not only the age of the earth, but just how morphine and the other components of opium bind to the mu opioid receptor quite well. This is how they numb pain. Cocaine is another molecule with some beneficial effects and can cause harm. Strychnine is toxic at any dose. Digitalis has benefits but will kill in any dose other than a tiny one. I could go on, but these are what I used for evidences of a Creator. Science and religion do not have to clash. Some on both sides make them clash. Anyone in pain will tell you that they are thankful to God for the gift of morphine. I have been told by a colleague that I could not be a good scientist if I believe in a Creator. I disagreed with him but we reminded friends. Now, I generally kept my views on the creation quiet from both sides.
Alan,
I think you speak very sensibly. Even under the Big Bang theory, the creation begins with a massive outburst of photons — “Let there be light!” These early photons filled the then-tiny universe. As the universe expanded, the light waves were stretched out so that they became microwaves.
Long before the BBT was standard thinking among cosmologists, the wave length of the resulting radiation was predicted and confirmed by AT&T engineers working on microwave towers.
The prediction is also that the radiation will be extremely uniform but not perfectly uniform. Recent satellite studies show that the microwave radiation is identical in all directions within 1 part in 100,000. However, there is just enough variation to allow life to one day exist. Perfect uniformity would have prevented the formation of stars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
The Wikipedia article is a good read. Before the universe became transparent enough for light to travel throughout it, it was “void and without form.”
Crazily enough, scientists predicted the measured distribution of the microwave radiation based on the necessity for life to one day exist here.
Skip wrote,
Remind me to discuss this after a few more posts appear.
Skip wrote,
Skip, to me, quantum mechanics plainly shows that not all causation is from within the universe. Things happen in QM with no cause — in physics or this universe. If God isn’t holding it all together and willing it to happen, it can’t happen.
QM shows us the boundary of this world up against the boundary of heaven. I personally see proof of a First Cause in QM.
If we accept an old Earth, then I believe we must by necessity concede that he perfected and restored creation in the very beginning of the seventh day/eon-only to be interrupted by Adam’s sin which in turn caused the cosmological curse.
Because Jesus says there will be a “restoration of all things” and Paul mentions all of creation yearns to be released from this curse into that pristine heavenly condition. What God originally intended for all. A new Heavens and a new Earth(universal restoration). Old Earth theologists should not neglect this aspect of Eschatology.
“Old Earth theologists should not neglect this aspect of Eschatology”.
Especially if they also believe in heaven on Earth. I realise some mistakenly hold to the Platonic concept that after the Parousia we will go live with him in yonder away from this physical universe. But the truth is Heaven and Earth will be One!.
God knew that man needed a day of rest. Just like God wrote the kosher laws. They were written to keep people alive. Man still cannot digest meat and milk well at the same time. Pork is still full of bacteria, and demons usually entered swine. Circumcision was commanded on the eighth day. This makes sense to scientists and physicians because clotting factor in the blood of a newborn rises to normal on day 8.
God didn’t need to make up a story about creating a world in 6 days(when he really didn’t -according to some) just to get man to rest on Saturday. Jay says, that God wouldn’t lie to man by leading him to believe that the earth is really, really old, when in fact it is only relatively young(paraphrase). God is not a man that He should lie.
I counter, by the same token, God doesn’t lead readers of HIs word, to believe that the earth is really young (by comparison), when in fact, it really is isn’t young. Wouldn’t that make God a liar, in this case too? “And the evening and the morning were” the (sequential numbered days). In six days God created the heavens and the earth. Psych! Just Kidding!— No! It is repeated over and over again without even a hint of metaphor or poetry that would make one believe it to be considered in a non-literal way. Was God just having fun with Bibles scholars for 2000 years? Does he get his laughs at YEC’s? “A real 6 days?” “How could they be so naïve? A real garden? A real man made from dust of the earth? A real woman made from his rib? A literal talking snake, that could walk(before being cursed to crawl on his belly)? A real talking donkey?” Where does the metaphor end and the literal begin in Genesis Ch. 1- 3 ? I defy anyone to take a metaphorical view of the creation story and then turn around and say “now the whole talking snake thing was literal.” Be prepared to be laughed to scorn by “people of Science”, at least be consistent. The Psalms on the other hand are a different classification than Genesis, filled many metaphors.
Some seem to believe that Science leads us down a path, and we must all follow, regardless of scripture. I mean if the evidence points in that direction, you have to go there, right? Maybe God left out some generations from Adam to Noah? Better check with science. Scientist say a certain coal deposit is 500 million years old(carbon dated) until they find a preserved man-made hammer or a formed gold bell inside the coal deposit. Uh-oh Houston! Do we stick with Science at this point, yes or no? Science can’t be wrong, can it? Or, for example, they say that certain ancient lava beds, deeply layered hundreds of feet down below the surface of the earth, are hundreds of millions of years old until they find human artifacts in those layers. Some things just aren’t what they appear to be (even scientifically speaking).
Does Scripture present us with some real head scratchers? Sure it does. What about Science? Surely! Has Science ever had to take two steps back before it could take one step forward again? You know the answer. Do we view Scripture through a scientific lens or do we view science(at least where creation is concerned) through the lens of scripture? Both are riddled with questions that are not presently answerable in a dogmatic sense. Both have a certain degree of faith needed.
Monty, God didn’t lie, He said He did it in a YOM. What MAN has done is take one if the definitions of that word and insist on a 24 hour day. That’s not God that’s people. Given the overwhelming evidence it’s unclear to me why people continue to insist on “poof there it is” as a creation narrative.
Price,
How many hours do you think, or can prove were involved in the first session of light? Then how many in the session of darkness? How many of those sessions are recorded prior to setting time into multiple divisions called seasons and years?
The Book of Genesis sets all of the divisions of time and seasons into place, light and dark completes a day, A week being a time of multiple days but less than a year, The division of time called a month was identified, time was divided into seasons and years, which remains consistent through out the complete scriptures.
Can man document a time frame when those terms referred to time frames that have been different from that time continuing till today?
Larry, how could there be a 24-hour day with light and dayt as measured by a complete rotation of the earth when there is no sun ? Again, the Hebrew word could mean an unidentified long period of time.. Given what we absolutely know, why does anyone insist on “poof there it is ?” What is less God-like of God to design, create and build a universe in 13.5 Billion years rather than 6,000 ?? It seems to me that some place far more confidence in the translators of the 1600’s than the advanced knowledge we have today…
Why is there so much determination to have science and the Bible disagree? It took science long enough but by backing up to the “big bang”, all of science agreed that there was in fact a “beginning.” So Science and God’s revelation begin in harmony… “In the beginning….” My guess is that one would have far greater impact outside of the comfort of their home congregation if they allow science and the Bible to agree as often as possible.. Right now there is no verifiable or reliable or reasonable verification that God just “poofed” everything into existence in separate 24 hour periods.. None whatsoever.. The fact that God COULD do something is a flimsy argument that could be applied to whatever one might suggest.
Regarding time… Is God bound by time ? Isn’t a thousand years as a single day to him ? The Bible has many passages where “yom” is used outside of a 24-hour day..
One final thought… evening and morning… that’s not 24 hours.. that’s basically half a day… Psalms 90 uses similar language to reflect the human life span… so not convincing at all that it suggests a 24-hour period of time..
Price — I think it’s more the “the evening and the morning” language than the YOM part… It’s a structure that doesn’t make sense in English outside the literal interpretation.
But why does it have to be an old Earth in an old universe or a young Earth in a young universe? Why can’t it be a young Earth in an old universe? My parents built a house on a lot where there was once nothing. The creation story is told from a geocentric perspective. Why do we believe that it is addressing the origins of the entire universe? (I’m really asking — I don’t think the answer lies in the first couple of chapters of Genesis…)
“Second-century astronomer Ptolemy’s (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn’t just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some. It wasn’t until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn’t the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction. Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.”
Just as the “scientists” in Ptolemy’s time were absolutely convinced they understood the universe, modern scientists can be absolutely convinced we have the origins of the universe completely figured out. We need to walk humbly as we try to square modern science and Genesis. God is fully capable of humbling us with new discoveries either in scripture, in science, or in both.
Article from GotQuestions.org
Question: “Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?”
Answer: A careful examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time. The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day…”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does it mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when it’s used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?
We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.
Science did indeed correct science.. and a century later the church finally admitted that their view of scripture and science was flawed… We indeed to walk humbly regarding a non-salvation issue but at the same time it’s wise to be as consistent as possible with what has been proven to be true or at least truer..
The other side of the coin… from “godandscience.org
Some claim yôm attached to a number (i.e., ordinal, “first, second, third,” etc.) requires a 24-hour-day interpretation. However, Bible scholars dispute that. For example, noted Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer states the ordinal simply defines a symbolic unit of time and “serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical author.” Archer also points out that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew (i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). He states, “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite… Thus they [the days of creation] are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”45
It should also be noted that there are instances in Scripture where yôm used with a number does not restrict its meaning to 24 hours. For example, Hosea 6:2 states: “He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day,” referring to Israel’s ultimate restoration some hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Zechariah 14:7, describing the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated “one day”). The context of Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning at least one summer and one winter, obviously longer than a 24-hour calendar day.
Besides, G-d also transcends time. He is not governed by the laws of physics and science.
If we have to be Hebrew scholars in order to understand that something doesn’t mean what everyone (before Evolution became popular) believed it meant, then there God goes again playing tricks on the unsuspecting reader. What is at the heart of what God was trying to convey to man in Genesis 1? That creation took billions of years? Really? If so, He sure did a poor job of communicating that. Personally, I believe Him to be better, much better, at doing so.
Jay said:
“A lot of really bad teaching fills the Christianity and Science space — on both sides. On the Christian side, most of the bad teaching comes from ignoring the Bible’s teaching about science. For example, the scriptures plainly teach us that God reveals himself through his creation.”
Scriptures do plainly teach that God reveals himself through his creation. Romans 1:19-20 says, creation reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature.
(Rom 1:19-20 ESV) 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Obviously, the creation shows God’s eternal power, but what does the creation say about God’s divine nature? Well it depends on how old you say the earth is.
All over the earth are sedimentary layers, sometimes thousands of feet thick containing what we call the fossil record. The fossil record is made up of billions of dead plants and animals buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime. This fossil record shows death, disease, suffering, thorns, animals eating one another, animal cannibalism, natural disasters, mass extinctions, etc. For example, many kinds of disease have been found in animals in the fossil record, including arthritis, abscesses, and tumors in dinosaur bones dated to be 110 million years old. There is also evidence of rickets, syphilis, dental disease, cannibalism, and other diseases in human fossil bones that evolutionists date to be tens or hundreds of thousands of years before any biblically plausible date for Adam. In many places around the world we see evidence of massive and violent carnage in fossil graveyards containing hundreds of thousands or even millions of former living creatures packed in high concentrations. Evolutionists insist that over the course of a half billion years there were five major extinction events or periods, when 65–90 percent of all species living at those particular times went extinct. They also claim many lesser extinction events or periods.
If the fossil record really represents about half a billion years of history, rather than the result of a global flood in judgment on a sinful world, then what does that say about God’s divine nature? This half a billion years of death and suffering would have to have been before Adam sinned; therefore it would be part of God’s “very good” creation. In fact, it would be part of God’s creative process, and not a result of Adam’s sin!
Would the God of the bible use millions of years of death and suffering to create? Is that consistent with what we read in the rest of the bible?
(Matthew 6:26) Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
(Luke 12:24) Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!
If the disciples didn’t believe that God cared about the birds and took care of them, even in this sin-cursed world, then Jesus’ statements would not have given them any comfort. Good thing they didn’t know anything about the fossil record!
(Proverbs 12:10) Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.
Humans were created to be stewards over God’s creation and to take care of it, so a righteous person will care for and have mercy on his animals because that’s how God is. Uh unless God used millions of years of death and suffering as part of creation. If that’s the case, God certainly showed no mercy in causing millions of years of death and suffering.
(Exodus 23:12) Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
God cared that the animals and servants got rest on the Sabbath, but if you accept and old earth then during creation he apparently only cared about the survival of the fittest.
(Genesis 8:8-17) Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
God makes the rainbow covenant with all of the animals as well as with Noah and family. If animals are just disposable, then why include them in the covenant? Obviously God doesn’t care about the animals to the same degree as humans who he created in his image, but it seems really strange for God to almost wipe all the animals out during creation in multiple mass extinction events (according to the evolutionists) and allow them to suffer for millions of years as the unfit are weeded out, and then make a covenant with them like this.
In his next post, Jay quotes sections of “the Bible’s famous chapter on the creation — Psalm 104.” Here is more of the psalm:
You make springs gush forth in the valleys;
they flow between the hills;
11 they give drink to every beast of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell;
they sing among the branches.
13 From your lofty abode you water the mountains;
the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work.
14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
16 The trees of the LORD are watered abundantly,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17 In them the birds build their nests;
the stork has her home in the fir trees.
18 The high mountains are for the wild goats;
the rocks are a refuge for the rock badgers.
19 He made the moon to mark the seasons;[a]
the sun knows its time for setting.
20 You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away
and lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work
and to his labor until the evening.
24 O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 Here is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with creatures innumerable,
living things both small and great.
26 There go the ships,
and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.[b]
27 These all look to you,
to give them their food in due season.
28 When you give it to them, they gather it up;
when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.
29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
It’s poetry of course, but it paints a vivid picture of God’s heart towards his creation. Considering God’s goodness, it is hard to consider millions of years of savage, competitive, evolutionary existence, with death as an ugly reality, supposedly needed to weed out the unfit. God’s mode of creating tells us about his mind, his heart.
Evil and death certainly exist today, but they came later, not as part of God’s original creation. They were the tragic result of the Fall; mankind’s disobedience (Genesis 3, Romans 8). A creation that includes a long process with millions of years of death, ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26), is not compatible with the expansive, loving and triumphant narrative told in the bible. The process of creation should fit the character and purposes of a God who does all things well, who is generous and merciful, and who delights in beauty. This is the God we can trust, seek to know and even love.
Millions of years of death are not consistent with the God of the bible. I’ve shared this quote before, but I’ll repeat it one more time since no one seems to want to discuss the implications. The non-Christian Philosopher of Science, Professor David Hull wrote:
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”
—David Hull, The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991.
If the fossil record really represents about half a billion years of history, rather than the result of a global flood in judgment on a sinful world, then what exactly happened at the Fall with respect to the physical creation?
In Genesis 3 we see that God’s judgment affected not only Adam and Eve, but the non-human creation as well. The serpent, which Satan used to deceive Eve, was cursed, resulting in a physical transformation of some kind, either morphological or behavioral, as it began to crawl on its belly (Genesis 3:14). Since the same verse says that other animals were also cursed with the serpent, it is reasonable to conclude that they also were altered physically in some way, either morphologically or at least behaviorally. Eve was changed physically so as to have increased pain in child-birth (Genesis 3:16).
Also, God cursed the ground itself.
(Genesis 3:17-18) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face You will eat bread, till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
Romans 8:20-23 says that the whole creation is now in bondage to corruption.
(Romans 8:20-23) For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
But if the millions of years of death, disease, and extinction really did occur, then the “very good” creation of Genesis 1 was considerably worse than the world we now inhabit where occasionally habitats are polluted or destroyed and a few creatures are brought to extinction due to human sin. We have never seen in human history the kind of mass-kill, extinction events that the evolutionary geologists say occurred before man came into existence (unless, that is, we accept the global Flood of Noah’s day; but old-earth proponents reject the idea that Noah’s Flood was global).
If you want to believe in millions of years, then you have to accept animals eating each other, diseases like cancer, and animals dying and going extinct over the course of millions of years before man, and then on into the present. This would mean that the Fall of man didn’t change anything, and that God described all this death and disease as “very good.” In this case, the creation is not “groaning” because of sin.
The Bible teaches that there will one day be a “restoration” of “all things.” We look forward to a new heaven and new earth where there will be no death or suffering, because there will be no more Curse (Revelation 21:3–5, 22:3). It will be a perfect place—just as everything was once perfect before sin – or will it? If you believe in millions of years with death, disease, and suffering of animals before sin, then what will this restoration look like? More death and suffering and disease for millions of years or forever? That would be a horrible prospect. No, the restoration will look like things were before sin—all was “very good.” And that indeed is something to look forward to!
Jim,
The Romans 8 argument is the most serious of your arguments because it’s built on scripture and not assumption. I’ll address it in a future post.
Jim wrote,
In truth, the scriptures often praise God and his creation as it exists now. You write as though the only thing praiseworthy is Eden and that God has since abandoned the world to Satan. It’s just not true. The world is good but adulterated by sin. We can see the good in it today. Indeed, when David and Paul tell us that the creation declares God’s glory, they are speaking of the creation as it now exists.
How could the Gentiles, who did not have Genesis, be without excuse if they had to read about Eden to see God in the creation?
And the world pictured by the fossil record was no more violent than it is today, the florid rhetoric of the Young Earth Creationist community notwithstanding. If the natural world as it is today reveals the glory of God, then so does the natural world as it was in the Cambrian era.
Amen, Jim, you nailed it! If we believe that death has always existed long before the garden in Genesis, then we make a mockery of the death of Christ. Evolution totally contradicts the very essence and foundational truth in Genesis. If death is not the penalty of man’s sin, then Christianity is meaningless.
The death of Christ was made necessary because of man’s sin. Man’s sin brought death, which in turn brought Jesus to pay the penalty in our place. Christianity has no beginning without the fall of man in Genesis which brought judgment upon both mankind and nature. The fall in the garden is absolutely central to the truth of the Christian faith. The nature of God and of man, of sin and redemption, the whole point of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection was to undo the effects that happened due to sin that began in the garden.
1 Corinthians 21-22 Just as we will die because of Adam, we will be raised to life because of Christ. Adam brought death to all of us, and Christ will bring life to all of us.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
Jay said:
“In truth, the scriptures often praise God and his creation as it exists now. You write as though the only thing praiseworthy is Eden and that God has since abandoned the world to Satan. It’s just not true. The world is good but adulterated by sin. We can see the good in it today. Indeed, when David and Paul tell us that the creation declares God’s glory, they are speaking of the creation as it now exists… How could the Gentiles, who did not have Genesis, be without excuse if they had to read about Eden to see God in the creation?”
I absolutely agree with you on this Jay, and you just made my point. The world is good but adulterated by sin. We can see the good in it today just like we can see the image of God in mankind even though that image is marred by sin. The image isn’t removed, and through the bible, especially in the life and example of Jesus, we see what that image should look like, and we strive to be transformed into that image. Likewise in the bible we see what the original creation was meant to be even though we see a marred, adulterated version of it now, and we await a restoration of that creation.
The Gentiles could see God in the creation (know that there was a single God, and ascertain some of his qualities), but David having the Law of Moses could see, and write about, the loving, merciful, just, all powerful Lord of heaven and earth described in the Law. We have an even clearer picture of God from the example of Jesus in the NT. We have Special Revelation from God in the form of the bible that gives us insight into the mind and heart of God that the creation does not. If I only have the creation to look at, and I mistakenly view the fossil record as billions of years of death and suffering, then I could legitimately surmise that God doesn’t care about animals, that there is nothing morally wrong with them suffering and dying, and that is just the way that God intended the creation to be. After all, if evolution is true then God either caused or stood by and watched billions of years of animals killing each other and suffering from diseases and starvation when he could have prevented it.
However, we have the bible with Proverbs 12:10, which says, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” A righteous person, a person with a heart like God, will have compassion for and care for his animals. Since we are made in God’s image, it follows that God also cares for and has compassion on all his creation. Therefore, the idea that the fossil record is part of God’s very good creation goes against the nature of God as revealed in the bible, but the fossil record being the result of a holy and righteous God’s judgment of a violent, wicked world is perfectly consistent.
Jay said:
“The Romans 8 argument is the most serious of your arguments because it’s built on scripture and not assumption. I’ll address it in a future post.”
Jay, I made my arguments based on the character of God revealed in scripture, not assumptions. If you don’t agree with my assessment of the scriptures and my conclusions, then we can discuss that, but don’t dismiss what I’ve said as just assumptions.
Jay said:
“And the world pictured by the fossil record was no more violent than it is today, the florid rhetoric of the Young Earth Creationist community notwithstanding. If the natural world as it is today reveals the glory of God, then so does the natural world as it was in the Cambrian era.”
Jay, I don’t see any major extinction events happening today that are killing off 65–90 percent of all living species or fossil graveyards being formed today with thousands of animals all buried together, so I’d argue that the world was much more violent back then. But that totally misses the point!
You said, “the world pictured by the fossil record was no more violent than it is today.” According to your view, the world pictured by the fossil record is before Adam sinned; it’s pre-Fall, part of God’s “very good” creation. I would certainly hope that it was no more violent than today’s sin-cursed, adulterated world! Are you really arguing that there is no difference between the creation pre-Fall and post-Fall? That the very good creation is no worse than the sin-cursed creation that was subjected to futility and is in bondage to corruption?
The natural world as it is today reveals the glory of God because we see hints of the original very good creation despite the violence and corruption. The violence certainly doesn’t reveal the glory of God.
Jim,
Since man appeared on the surface of the earth, the rate of extinctions has multiplied. But for recently enacted laws, the bald eagle, California condor, and countless other species would be extinct today. According to a recent newspaper article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/11/there-have-been-five-mass-extinctions-in-earths-history-now-were-facing-a-sixth/)–
Five major extinction events in 450 million years — 1 per 90 million years. And yet humans are now themselves creating a sixth major extinction event, with thousands of species ended, including the dodo bird, the passenger pigeon, the great auk, and many, many others.
So, yes, extinctions pre-date humanity and some were dreadful, but they were very infrequent. Now, for as long as there have been humans on the planet, the rate of extinction has increased by at least 100 fold over the historic or natural rate.
Those are the facts. The rate of extinctions pre-humanity was much, much lower than the current rate of extinction. I have no problem agreeing that the increase in the rate of extinction due to humanity is due to sin.
Extinctions occurred pre-humanity at a much LOWER rate. Therefore, the fossil record doesn’t reveal a history of greater violence and extinction. It reveals LESS violence and extinction, with extinctions greatly accelerated when sin entered the world.
Jay said – The rate of extinctions pre-humanity was much, much lower than the current rate of extinction. I have no problem agreeing that the increase in the rate of extinction due to humanity is due to sin.
To have been very good God’s creation was without blemish, defect, disease, suffering, or death. Animals did not prey on each other, and the first two humans, Adam and Eve, did not kill animals for food. Both humans and animals were vegetarians at the time of creation.
Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
To say death existed before the fall of man, that the earth was already cursed with death, totally goes against what the Bible says. The Bible says death entered the world from sin, death came after sin not vice versa. God did not have reason to curse the earth with death until sin. You have God cursing the earth with death before sin.
Grace.. unless the animals and man were able to exist without nutrition, something got eaten.. which meant it died… and wasn’t the “death” that came into the world “spiritual death?” Adam didn’t die right away.. he lived for many hundreds of years after Eden…
Adam and Eve had spiritual death and the physical death process began. They went from living forever with God’s presence in the garden to after they sinned they became separated from God and thus began to die. This dying life could not sustain them forever and finally their life ran out and they died.
The Bible makes a distinction between plants and animals. This distinction is expressed in the Hebrew word nephesh, which describes an aspect of life attributed only to animals and humans. Nephesh is translated “breathing creature” or “living creature”. Plants do not possess this nephesh quality.
Genesis 1:20-21 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Jay, I really can’t believe we’re arguing about the degree of death and suffering. You said, “Those are the facts. The rate of extinctions pre-humanity was much, much lower than the current rate of extinction. I have no problem agreeing that the increase in the rate of extinction due to humanity is due to sin.” Jay, if the increase in the rate of extinction due to humanity is due to sin, then extinction must be morally wrong. You said that “extinctions greatly accelerated when sin entered the world,” so extinctions must be wrong. If extinctions were “right”, i.e. they were part of the original creation, then they wouldn’t increase after sin entered the creation. That would be like claiming that love and peace increased when sin entered the world!
Obviously we don’t see eye to eye on this, but that really doesn’t matter because the issue is whether or not any death and suffering before Adam sinned is compatible with God’s nature revealed in the bible. That’s the issue you haven’t addressed. How can Proverbs 12:10 commend a righteous man for caring for his beasts and condemn the wicked for being cruel and lacking mercy when God himself caused or allowed billions of animals to suffer and die for millions of years? If God showed that kind of cruelty or indifference towards the beasts under his care, then why should a righteous man care for his beasts?
Price, Grace is correct that there is a difference between what the bible considers a living creature (that can suffer death biblically speaking), and what modern science defines as biologically alive. Plants, insects, and such are not “alive” in the same sense as the nephesh chayyāh creatures (vertebrate animals containing blood). Here’s an article that discusses this in depth.
http://creation.com/nephesh-chayyah
So, let me get this straight. You want us to believe that in order to discount every division of scientific learning that the earth and the universe are incredibly old….that fish ate no other fish…hawks and falcons ate blueberries and lions ate pancakes… not buying it… Vultures, I guess they starved to death… Why would God create a species to co-exist with the other creatures in a food chain environment and then artificially prevent them from doing what he created them to do… On what do we base our facts that animals designed by God to eat other animals in fact did not ? Not sure why God is considered heartless or whatever for allowing the animals to actually do what He created them to do ? Survival of the fittest may not look so hot in a Disney movie but it is how God created nature to be… Is God less accountable for creating the animals to kill other animals if He prevents them from doing so by some supernatural means ? Odd defense to an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary… Perhaps that is why is has merited less than any consideration in the majority of opinion.
Price,
So you are saying there was animal eating animal in the original garden of Eden, despite the fact that everyone was an herbivore prior to the flood (Genesis 9:3,5).
Price, Also, Genesis 1:29-30 says, ” 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.” And it was so.” Since it is the word of God, I believe it was true.
So how do you deal with Abel raising sheep? [Gen 4:2 ESV] And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.” What was the purpose of sheep ? Pets ? I don’t find anything convincing that animals weren’t used as food.. Again, the question wasn’t answered…why would God create animals with specific features to kill and eat other animals if that was not the original intent ? Seems odd to me.. Did dino’s eat just plants ? Where did the animal skins come from that God clothed Adam and Eve in ? Sears ? And, just because He gave them plants to eat doesn’t mean they couldn’t eat meat… It seems odd to me that God would create carnivores if the intent was for them to be herbivores…
Skip did Tyrannosaurus eat trees until after the flood ?
“I give every green plant for food.” Skip that argument is kind of like the argument whether we are saved by grace or works, I don’t see the word “only” anywhere. If it were to say I only give you permission to eat plants. It would be different.
I wish some one of you who is much smarter than myself would figure out how a mosquito whose life span covers approx. ten days lived for seven months aboard the ark. and just what did blood sucking insects survive on plants.
God responded to Adam and Eve’s act of disobedience by making the very first blood sacrifice on their behalf. God made coats of skins to clothe Adam and Eve to provide covering for Adam and Eve’s exposed nakedness.
And Abel, the keeper of sheep had been raised by Adam and Eve and understood the animal sacrifice that was made by God to cover Adam and Eve’s sin. God favored that Abel understood the sacrifice as he gave the sheep of his flock as an offering to God.
Genesis 4:4 But Abel brought a gift of the first-born of his flocks and of the fat parts. The Lord showed favor to Abel and his gift.
There was no death, suffering or disease before man sinned. When man sinned, the gradual decay and decline of everything began. This is contrary to what the world teaches through macroevolution and billions of years that has pain, suffering and death before there was ever any sin. Such beliefs greatly undermine Genesis and Christianity.
@ Grace… I think humility would require me to say “perhaps” to your last post… But, it seems that you make considerable assumptions about things which scripture itself says nothing about. We have no idea what sacrificial instructions were given to Adam. We have no idea whether or not Cain’s veggies would have been acceptable if done with a sincere heart;, there is no indication that the family didn’t eat the sheep and quite frankly it was mentioned that Able raised sheep in the same sentence as Cain worked the ground which seems more logical to assume that it was for consumption purposes for both.. To suggest that the creation of carnivorous animals is somehow less than desirable is to question the very species that God created. Did God not know that Adam would sin? Did He really create carnivores to be herbivores ? Did T-Rex eat peanut butt and jelly sandwiches ? I find the speculation and assumptions regarding the Disney World environment that you envision to be without solid support… I find no reason to believe that animals created by God and described as “good” were also the kind of animals that ate other animals…just as they do in the wild today. But, like I said.. “perhaps”…
Laymond asked me to speak at 11:34 and it was the blood suckers sucked off each other and the dead ones.
Nothing is said about their continuing breeding and giving birth. We know how many got on, but the number that got off was much higher.
Also there were many animals and others that got on two by two, or more in some cases, and were eaten and the name and knowledge of their kind has been forgotten.
We all know that Noah and his kin were scared to death and that is where we get the saying the dying man has his last meal and its always a doozey.
Country boy knowledge is to know what some being is to eat, look at its teeth and that will tell you.
I do believe it was that Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable being from a sincere heart. You see being a good shepherd, you love and live with the sheep, you a have a bond with them, there is a relationship between a good shepherd and his sheep.
To a shepherd it would bring some amount of grief to give the life of a sheep that he has bond with that he has loved.
Jesus the Good Shepherd, rather than see us die, He gave His own life in our place to save us from our sins.
That the fall in Genesis that brought suffering and death is the reality that happened in the garden. It is not something Christianity can dismiss as a fairy tale.
Jim wrote,
Under your theory, all the animals that died in 500,000,000 years in fact died in the Flood — all at once. By drowning. Which is a horrific way to die. It’s the SAME death count but over a much shorter period.
Yes, many, many animals died in 500 million years, but not that many per year. The pace of death matters. Few deaths per year is better than many death per year. And so, under your theory of animal morality, the Flood is about 1 billion times more cruel than the story told by the fossil record.
Laymond said:
“I give every green plant for food.” Skip that argument is kind of like the argument whether we are saved by grace or works, I don’t see the word “only” anywhere. If it were to say I only give you permission to eat plants. It would be different.
(Genesis 1:29-30) 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.
(Genesis 9: 1-3) Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
In the original creation God gave all the plants as food for both man and animals, but after the flood, God gave the animals to mankind as food as well. Genesis 9:3 makes it absolutely clear that originally mankind was only allowed to eat plants. They were not allowed to eat animals until after the flood when God said, “Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” So even though you don’t see the word “only” anywhere, God did only give humans permission to eat plants. Since the plants were given to the animals in the very next verse with almost identical wording, it seems pretty clear to me that God meant the same thing for the animals. Do you disagree? If so what is your reasoning from scripture?
Price, same question to you.
Laymond/Price,
Mosquitoes and other parasites were probably designed to be pollinators as the following articles discuss.
http://www.icr.org/article/mosquitoes-fall/
https://answersingenesis.org/biology/disease/the-genesis-of-malaria/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+(Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles)
There are many examples of carnivores thriving on plants instead of meat.
http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat
http://creation.com/vegetarian-shark
http://creation.com/lea-the-spaghetti-lioness
http://creation.com/the-bird-of-prey-thats-not
http://creation.com/vegetarian-spider
http://creation.com/echoes-of-eden
http://creation.com/leopard-baboon-altruism
http://creation.com/the-cat-who-refuses-to-eat-meat
See the links in the Further Reading section of the Echoes of Eden article for reports that show that herbivores in this cursed world can become carnivore.
Jay, just for the record, MOST of the animals in the fossil record died in the flood. Biblical creationists believe that there were local/regional catastrophes after the flood that resulted in some of the sedimentary layers and fossils. Specifically, there was a single ice age after the flood that resulted in regional floods when ice dams melted. But that’s beside the point.
You said, “Under your theory, all the animals that died in 500,000,000 years in fact died in the Flood — all at once. By drowning. Which is a horrific way to die. It’s the SAME death count but over a much shorter period.”
It is a horrific way to die! But that’s the consequences of sin. Even though the animals didn’t sin, they suffered as a result of man’s sin. Just like in Deuteronomy 28:15–68 where God threatened to curse the land, the crops and the livestock of the Jews, as well as judging the people themselves, because of their disobedience. The land, crops, and livestock didn’t sin, but they were cursed as the result of man’s sin.
That’s the difference; not the rate of death, but a righteous judgment of sin vs. cruel indifference in a supposedly “very good’ creation!
Jim argues that carnivores really are omnivores and so could have eaten only veggies pre-Flood.
For example, a domesticated lion prefers spaghetti to raw meat.
Obviously, an animal will eat outside of its normal diet in domestication rather than starve. And most humans would prefer spaghetti to raw meat despite how much we love meat. We’re domesticated, too.
Pre-Flood I’m confident that lions weren’t given spaghetti as a choice and weren’t domesticated. And ask any zookeeper: we’ve learned that captured animals do best when fed what they ate in the wild.
And why on earth did God give stegosaurs protective armor and spikes if they had no carnivores to fear? Why give triceratops horns? Why do turtles have shells?
No, there must be a better way to read the text.
Further on the nutritional needs of carnivores: http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/01/03/food_for_pets_and_zoo_animals_they_should_eat_real_meat.html
This article regarding feeding carnivores in zoos notes their discovery that carnivores not only need to eat meat, they need to eat meat on the bone — actual animal carcasses. When tigers are given meat ground up for easy storage and shipment, they develop highly neurotic behaviors. They also have severe dental problems because they aren’t using their teeth for tearing flesh and gnawing bones.
Zoos once were filled with obese and highly stressed and even neurotic animals. Feeding them what they eat in nature — even carcasses — improves their physical and mental health.
That’s the science of carnivore nutrition based on real experimentation and observation. (I’m waiting for the day when creation “scientists” actually do an experiment.)
Does this destroy the Bible, gospel, and God? Of course, not. It just means that we’re reading the text incorrectly.
Ask any policeman when they go to a house that neighbors have been complaining of the bad smell and there are vegetables and fruit all laying about a dead body, what were the dogs and cats eating? Nature rules.
Literally, Genesis 9:3 should read…
“Everything that lives and creeps about will be food for you, as the green herbs. I give you all things.”
This verse does not necessarily imply meat was forbidden until then. But simply a new beginning after the cosmic(world) flood. Besides, verse three is part of an antithetical command not to eat the blood of any living thing(nor to cruelly gnaw on the flesh of the living) in verse 4.
I am of the view that at the Fall, “death entered the world” in that for the first time the planet began to suffer the effects of entropy, as God withdrew the creative power of his word from it. The system closed and the earth began to die. This cosmic view is much more contextually well-suited with the way the phrase appears in scripture. Literalism is forcing us once again into far-fetched conjecture that not only disagrees with part of the natural evidence, but in this case, conflicts with ALL of it.
Jay said,
“I’m waiting for the day when creation “scientists” actually do an experiment.”
Jay you continue to make these snide and very un-Christian ad hominem attacks on creation scientists by implying that they are not real scientists. You sound very much like the evolutionists who use the same tactics. Now I’m confident that you are well aware that there are a large number of creationists worldwide who have PhDs in disciplines such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. You may disagree with their findings and positions, and you certainly have every right to discuss and challenge their positions and show where they are wrong, but ridiculing your brothers and sisters in Christ who you disagree with is completely uncalled for.
But since you’ve been waiting for the day when creation scientists actually do an experiment, today’s your day. Here are some research done by creationists:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/helium-diffusion-rates-support-accelerated-nuclear-decay/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/successful-predictions-creation-scientists/
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/creation-scientists-arent-real-scientists-dont-do-real-research/
Jay said,
“Obviously, an animal will eat outside of its normal diet in domestication rather than starve. And most humans would prefer spaghetti to raw meat despite how much we love meat. We’re domesticated, too.”
Jay, you obviously didn’t read the article because the article begins by saying that the lion’s owners did everything they could to get it to eat meat, but it refused. The article said:
In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it—even when only a single drop of blood had been added.
The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).
Jay said,
“That’s the science of carnivore nutrition based on real experimentation and observation.”
Let’s suppose this research is completely correct, and the examples I provided of carnivores thriving on a vegetarian diet are anomalies. It still doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on the original creation. The creation was cursed when Adam sinned. In Genesis 3, God cursed the serpent, resulting in a physical transformation of some kind, either morphological or behavioral, as it began to crawl on its belly. The same verse says that other animals were also cursed with the serpent, so it is reasonable to conclude that they also were altered physically in some way, either morphologically or at least behaviorally. Eve was changed physically so as to have increased pain in child-birth (Genesis 3:16). Also, God cursed the ground itself (Genesis 3:17). And of course Paul speaks of the entire creation being subject to the bondage of decay. Therefore, observations of carnivores today may not provide accurate data about the pre-Fall creation.
As we have been arguing over the fossil record, I have continually made the point that the world today is significantly different from the pre-Fall world. My argument has been that the death and suffering in the fossil record (animals eating one another, diseases, etc.) could not have been part of the original creation, and only came about after the curse. After sin entered the world animals began eating one another. We even see this happening today where herbivores have turned carnivore, such as sheep eating chickens (http://creation.com/focus-214#wildandwoolly) and New Zealand parrots eating sheep (http://creation.com/Air-attack).
Also, based on Genesis 3, God may have supernaturally changed animals and plants as part of the curse, which means that what we observe in the world today does not accurately reflect the original creation. Of course if God did supernaturally change the animals and plants, then we would not be able to ascertain that scientifically.
You seem to continually argue that all the death and suffering in the fossil record and the animal characteristics observed today accurately reflect the original creation, so the Fall had essentially no effect on the creation. So I’m curious to know what do you think were the effects, if any, of the Fall on the creation?
RJ,
Thanks. I think you’re right. I think the fact that Abel was a shepherd shows that meat was eaten after the expulsion from the Garden. The inhabitants of Eden likely were vegetarians, but the Garden contained the Tree of Life.
God’s declaration that animals and men are to eat vegetables occurred on the sixth day and, I believe, only applied in the Garden of Eden. This accords with the fossil record and obvious design of God’s creatures, who were made before the sixth day and so were made at a time so such restrictions applied.
Charles,
I agree. Orthodox cosmology posits that the world began with low entropy, which has been increasing ever since. It fits the dynamic of Genesis 1 quite well.
Jim G wrote,
Let’s start with the last link “Creation Scientists Aren’t Real Scientists.” Let see. The key paragraph is —
There are no links to the actual papers, and so I must travel on what the author tells us. The papers are said to be available at the site’s bookstore, but I can’t find them. That’s probably my own fault, but it would have thoughtful to link directly to the actual articles. I looked under “Technical & Academic” as well as other places.
Most of these papers are dealing with the history of science or YE Creationism or else reflecting on research done by others. The prominence of Fibonacci numbers in nature has been known for centuries (and is highly suggestive of a Creator behind the math — but they say nothing about the age of the earth).
I have no idea what “creation of elements from water” means, but it doesn’t sound very scientific. In short, the papers may be genuinely interesting and even relevant to YE Creationism, but I’m not seeing any original scientific research – although maybe the titles fail to disclose the real science behind the papers.
The nautiloid research might be real science, but without the actual paper, none of us really can say. The same is true of the research on the dating methods used by scientists. Everything I’ve read in Creationist literature up to this point has been far from scientific, but if I had the actual research to review, perhaps my opinion would change. But given the very poor quality of what I’ve read in Creation Science literature up until now, I’m more than a little skeptical.
In a 2011 article on the same website, criticism of scientific dating methods is met with this argument —
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/dating-techniques/. It’s a faith claim and not remotely science. And it’s not very good theology either. (Peter is speaking of the Second Coming, not nuclear decay rates.)
Ironically, scientists first came to conclude that natural laws are constant throughout time and space because of their belief that God made the laws, and because God is unchanging, so are his laws.
There is no scientific basis to believe that, for example, the rate of radioactive decay has changed over time, and every reason for a Christian to believe that God’s natural laws are constant.
Jim G cites an article regarding helium levels in zircons as tested by Creationist scientists. Fair enough.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/helium-diffusion-rates-support-accelerated-nuclear-decay/ It appears that these guys actually did experiments. However, their work is criticized in http://www.oldearth.org/RATE_critique_he-zr.htm, an article published in 2005. Surprisingly, their 2011 article makes no mention of this criticism. Among lawyers, it’s considered unethical not to cite opposing authorities. (See also this 2007 critique: https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-07.pdf)
In short, I stand corrected. The RATE project testing helium levels in zircon involves actual experimentation and observation. But any “science” built on a rejection of the constancy of atomic decay rates is very questionable. And it’s odd that the RATE scientists happily assume a constant rate when the result affirms their beliefs and happily reject constancy when needed to reject other possibilities. It’s a little too convenient. (They assume constancy after the Flood but not before, making it possible to date rocks to the time of the Flood but not earlier.)
Here, at the conclusion of a supposedly scientific article, the scientists cite as “proof” that nuclear forces changed during the Flood a chapter in 2 Peter. Again, it’s a faith claim, not a scientific claim.
Could God have done this? Sure, but it’s not science to base one’s opinion on radiometric dating on 2 Peter 3 (which is about the Second Coming, not the rate at which nuclei decay).
In fact, this is little different from claiming that the earth looks old because God created it looking old — in this case, by temporarily changing the laws of nuclear decay to confuse the evolutionists. I mean, no theological or scientific reason for God to change the strong force in the nucleus during the Flood has been posited — just a bad piece of exegesis.
Jim G references an article listing a few predictions of Young Earth Creationism: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/successful-predictions-creation-scientists/
The first such prediction is the decaying magnetic field of the earth — which is discussed in today’s post. It’s a bogus claim. Rather, the YEC theory is that God created strong magnetic fields in the magnetosphere that is rapidly decaying and not being renewed, and yet ancient rocks show that the magnetic field has varied up and down and frequently reversed — none of which is consistent with the YEC theory.
And the YEC article celebrates proof based on radiometric dating that two field reversals occurred within 15 days or so of each other (because they postulate that all the recorded reversals occurred during the Flood in very short order).
I just don’t buy it. It’s all so circular. Because there was a Flood and the earth is only 6,000 years old, then the geological evidence must be compressed to fit a 6,000 year world. When we do that, the field varies rapidly and reverses every few days — and lots of lava is produced recording these reversals. Radiometric dating makes these appear millions of years old, but when science gets in the way, we assume a miracle.
God’s laws vary with time (as necessary to prove our assumptions), making it impossible to date these ancient events accurately, and so we must stick with our original assumptions. Assumption proves assumption.
PS — 2 Peter 3 does not apply to me because I deeply believe in the Second Coming. I do not assume that things will never change. I also believe in miracles. I just don’t believe in labeling faith claims as “science.” And I fervently believe that the world and skies reveal the glory of God — even when we use telescopes and electron microscopes to view the handiwork of God. It’s every bit as much the work of God as the scriptures.
They do not contradict, but only if we do sound exegesis.
Jim G wrote,
Read it. I also know someone who grew up and went to college eating nothing but French fries. Does that mean God meant for humans to eat only French fries?
My two-year old grandson often refuses water and milk, insisting on chocolate milk. Does that mean chocolate milk is best for him? Or does it mean our taste buds aren’t always the best guide toward a healthy diet. I’m sure the same is true of lions. A lot of us humans and animals eat what we like rather than what we were designed to eat. (And how does spaghetti serve as a stand in for raw vegetables, which is the diet being claimed?)
I especially took note of the final footnote:
This not science because it’s not falsiable. Even if the evidence contradicts the YEC claim, the YEC advocates just argue for a miraculous solution. Which obviously God can do — but it’s not science.
When the rocks appear too old, then God must have changed the laws of nature to make them appear old. If wolves only thrive when eating animal carcasses, then God did a miracle to change them from herbivores to carnivores. Which he could well have done — but it’s still not science when such special pleading is necessary to make the case. Indeed, you even have to put the dinosaurs on the ark (really a tight squeeze to fit every species of dinosaur in the fossil record in the ark!) and then have nearly all die off quickly despite God’s extraordinary efforts to rescue them. The poor Tyrannosaurs finally get to eat meat and then they mysteriously die off shortly after the Flood.
Jim G wrote,
Working on posts to answer exactly that question. It’s a fair one. How do we reconcile God’s revelation in scripture with his revelation in the earth and the skies?
Didn’t Peter use the term Kosmos for world instead of Gaia(earth/land)? So wouldn’t that make the flood universal?
“God’s declaration that animals and men are to eat vegetables occurred on the sixth day and, I believe, only applied in the Garden of Eden”.
I don’t think the declaration was a exclusive(even in the Garden), but rather an affirmative: A gift lavished on man and animal. “I give you herbs…for food”. I don’t believe there is a hint of restriction in this primordial passage.
Some are actually attempting to use this verse as a proof-text for the law of silence(i.e. do nothing unless authorized).
Before man was cursed, I believe he had superhuman powers(like Christ’s post-resurrection body). He could instantly terminate an animal(without it feeling a thing). Then revive the creature after consuming it. I can’t even fathom how perfect creation was when man was placed in Paradise(the garden).
R.J.,
I find myself having to ask, if he had that kind of power why would he need to consume an animal at all, why not just fill is own stomach with the source of the power used to revive the non existing animal he had consumed?
RJ,
Koine Greek is just not that precise. Kosmos can mean the earth that God created and can mean the known world (Col 1:6).
“R.J.,
I find myself having to ask, if he had that kind of power why would he need to consume an animal at all”?
He doesn’t need it. it’s just a delicacy(steak, veal). Better yet God could just provide the meat for enjoyment without killing an animal(after all, he is omnipotent lol).
Is there any scientific evidence of a mass graveyard of millions who drowned in this geological location?