Scripture, Science, and the Age of the Universe

2008-12-12T22:11:00.026+01:00

Preface
Introduction

Part 1: An Exegetical Investigation of the Day-Age Interpretation
Chapter 1: Some Preliminary Comments on Ancient Hebrew
                  2: Day One
                  3: Day Six
                  4: Day Seven
                  5: Other Significant Passages

Part 2: Exegetical, Theological, and Historical Issues
Chapter 6: Context and Geography
                  7: Genesis 1 Reconsidered
                  8: The History of the Day-Age Interpretation
                  9: The Young-Earth Scenario
                10: Further Objections

Part 3: The Nature of Nature
Chapter 11: The Testimony of Creation
                 12: Some Issues That Arise
                 13: Meditating on Adam’s Navel
                 14: General Revelation and Science
                 15: Creation Ex Nihilo and the Big Bang: A Test Case

Chapter 16: The Least Problematic Explanation

Conclusion
Appendix: The Early Church Fathers and the Days of Creation
Bibliography

Preface

2008-12-12T22:10:00.019+01:00

This blog consists of a book I wrote several years ago about (spoiler!) Scripture, science, and the age of the universe. The blog address is simply the acronym of the title dot-blogspot-dot-com. I’ve never tried to publish it since I really wrote it for myself; I find that writing things out, then reviewing and rewriting, helps me sort out my thoughts on a subject.

The majority of it was written in a two-week period in May and June of 2001. After that, I continued to add to, subtract from, and fine-tune it for a few years. I added an entire section assessing some of the proposed scientific evidences for a young earth and universe, but then decided not to include it, as it goes beyond my intended scope and area of expertise (of course, I didn’t come to this realization until after I had written it). There are plenty of important books that go unmentioned, as after several years of writing it, I became preoccupied with other studies. My views have changed a bit in the last few years, and I depended too much on particular authors when I wrote this, but I think it still has some value.

The references in the notes at the bottom of each chapter include the author’s name, year of publication (or title in some cases), and page numbers where appropriate. The full details are in the Bibliography. At one point, I lost most of the references and had to re-look them all up. I got most of them, but unfortunately there are still a few empty footnotes. I’ll try to fill in the blanks when I can. All Internet links, most of which are in the Bibliography, were valid as of May 2009. Unless otherwise noted, Bible quotes are from the New International Version. The following abbreviations are used:

BDB: Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.
DBI: Leland Ryken, et al. (1998), gen. eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998).
GHCL: Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Samuel Tregelles, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950).
NEDOT: Merrill F. Unger and William White, Jr., Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980).
OTWS: William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978).
TDOT: G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
TLOT: Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, Mark E. Biddle, trans. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997).
TWOT: R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980).

Some article titles or quotations include Hebrew and/or Greek terms. Since I don’t know how to use Hebrew and Greek fonts in blogger, I have simply replaced the terms with a transliteration in brackets.

I don’t know if blogs can be dedicated, but I’m going to do it anyway. This blog/book is dedicated to my wife.

Introduction

2008-12-12T22:09:00.038+01:00

Whenever the subject of the Bible and the age of the universe comes up in conversation (which seems to happen a lot around me … hmm), the question that is invariably asked is something along the lines of “Why does this matter?” My answer is always the same: it doesn’t. The age of the earth has no intrinsic relationship with our spiritual life or our walk with God, and has no significant bearing on our doctrine. It’s a non-issue.

However, I qualify this by saying that it does have some extrinsic significance with regards to our Christian testimony. Non-Christians often view this issue as just one of many examples of religious belief conflicting with truth. Why should they take seriously a religion which doesn’t even try to deal with reality? If being a Christian entails dismissing the world that systematic observation has revealed, how (they argue) can they be challenged to take it seriously?

Unfortunately, many Christians respond to this by feeling backed into a corner or (to mix metaphors) drawing lines in the sand rather than looking at the issues head on. Often, this results in Christians letting the secular world define the terms of the debate, including Christian doctrine! Instead of considering the possibility that we may have taken a wrong turn somewhere, we give knee-jerk reactions to defend what we think Christianity requires, instead of making sure that we’ve got it right in the first place. This sometimes results in Christians fighting tooth and nail to defend their take on a certain issue which has no inherent significance at all.

Flat-earth creationism
Let me give you an example: in 1828, Washington Irving wrote his story of Columbus.{i} In it, he took some liberties with the historical facts, by saying that Columbus was trying to prove that the earth is round. In actuality, Columbus was trying to discover an alternate passage to the East Indies by sailing west, as opposed to the usual route of south, around Africa, and east. But the belief that the earth is round has been the dominant position ever since Aristotle based his cosmology on it in the fourth century BC, and became almost universal once Ptolemy did the same in the second century AD. Basically, every educated person after Aristotle knew that the earth was round, and most of the uneducated ones did too.{ii}

However, by about 1870, western society had pretty much uncritically accepted the idea that, prior to Columbus, everyone thought the world was flat. There were two primary reasons for this: first, the 19th century was a time of great optimism for the human race. People thought that we were quickly advancing towards a manmade utopia, and for many this implied the superiority of modern man over his predecessors. Thus, it was very conducive to this worldview to portray those who lived prior to the Enlightenment as a bunch of uneducated half-wits who didn’t even know the earth is round.

Second, at this time, some people were very confident that scientific discoveries would eventually explain everything without any recourse to God (a view known as “naturalism”). However, many scientists did not accept naturalism,{iii} so a cultural campaign was initiated which sought to identify it with science itself, and to this end represented any denial of naturalism as part and parcel of ignorant religious believers getting in the way of truth and progress.{iv} Examples were found, twisted, and sometimes completely invented in order to illustrate the point. The flat earth was a perfect candidate for one of these “examples”: in Irving’s story, he had made Columbus’s opponents the priests and inquisitors who didn’t want anyone challenging their authority to make pronouncements about what constituted reality.

But then a very strange thing happened. Some Christians, in an attempt to defend their worldview, allowed the tenets of their faith to be dictated to them by those who proudly pronounced themselves as enemies of Christianity. In the mid-19th century, Samuel Rowbotham, calling himself “Parallax,” claimed that a flat earth is the only valid interpretation of the Bible. He then devised an entire astronomical system called “zetetic astronomy” on the assumption of a flat earth, and compiled dozens of scientific “proofs” that the earth is flat and stationary. Flat-earth creationism produced a plethora of books and tracts, and was still being defended well into the 20th century, and even the 21st.{v}

Of course, there are biblical passages which refer to “the ends of the earth” and “the four corners of the earth.” However, as with terms such as “sunset” and “sunrise,” “This is a perfectly acceptable type of phenomenal terminology, employed by all languages at all periods of their history.”{vi} “The ends of the earth” merely refers to the most distant places, and “the four corners of the earth” refers to the most distant places in the four directions in which one can go (north, south, east, and west). Some have even argued that there are biblical passages which describe the earth with the Hebrew word hug, or circle, and suggest that these may be statements affirming that the earth is spherical (Job 22:14; Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22). However, in light of phenomenal terminology, I think these are more likely mere references to the horizon.

Additionally, there are a few historical figures who went against the flow, but this does not negate the consensus view. The extent to which a flat earth was accepted in ancient and medieval Christianity is sometimes exaggerated based on criticisms of the theory of “antipodes.” But this seems to be a misunderstanding: “antipodes” referred to people who were alleged to live on the other side of the earth. The Christian authors who rejected this (not all did) pointed to the almost universally-held belief that it was impossible to travel from one side to the other, “either because the sea was too wide to sail across or because the equatorial zones were too hot to sail through.”{vii} Therefore, no one from one side of the earth could have gotten to the other side, so that if there were people on the other side of the earth they could not share a common origin with us. Some have unfortunately taken these statements to mean that they were denying there was an “other side” of the world at all. But these authors were making anthropological statements, not geographical ones.

The only individuals who clearly affirmed a flat earth were Lactantius (third and fourth centuries), whose “views eventually led to his works being condemned as heretical after his death”; Severian (fourth century); and Cosmas Indicopleustes (sixth century) who exerted virtually zero influence on his contemporaries or the Middle Ages: “The first translation of Cosmas into Latin, his very first introduction into western Europe, was not until 1706. He had absolutely no influence on medieval western thought.”{viii}

Additionally, Diodore of Tarsus (fourth century) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fourth and fifth centuries) are referenced by other Christians as affirming a flat earth in order to refute them, but their actual writings are lost.{ix} Isidore of Seville (sixth and seventh centuries) is often given as an example of a flat-earther, because some of his writings seem to affirm corollaries of a flat earth. But since he also gives a figure for the earth's circumference (80,000 stadia) and affirms that the sky is spherical and equidistant from the earth on all sides, it is difficult to attribute a belief in a flat earth to him.{x}

So Lactantius, Severian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Diodore, and Theodore of Mopsuestia make a grand total of five Christian writers who affirmed, or apparently affirmed, a flat earth, all of whom lived in late Antiquity at the very latest, and none of whom were taken seriously.

Young-earth creationism
What is the point of all this? The calendar-day interpretation (the belief that the days of creation are best interpreted as calendar days of 24 hours each) has been one of several views held by Christians throughout history, and by itself does not at all parallel flat-earth creationism. However, the modern expression of the calendar-day interpretation is a system known as “young-earth creationism” (a.k.a. “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” or “flood geology”). According to this view, all of the features or characteristics of the modern world (such as mountain ranges, the geological column, the fossil record, etc.) formed during Noah’s flood. This view parallels flat-earth creationism in that it is a very recent interpretation of Scripture which began as a reaction against the advance of naturalism.

At the end of the 19th century, “about the only Christians to insist on the recent appearance of life and on a fossil-burying flood were the Seven-Day Adventists disciples of Ellen G. White, who claimed to have witnessed the creation of the world in a vision.”{xi} In the early 20th century, a Seventh-day Adventist named George McCready Price developed the scenario he dubbed “flood geology” in order to justify White’s claims.{xii} It needs to be pointed out that Seventh-day Adventism was originally very cultic, if not an outright cult, and maintained that White’s visions were as authoritative as Scripture, or even more so (in the last several decades, they have backed away from this view).{xiii} In the late 1920s, one of Price’s only non-Adventist supporters publicly encouraged Christians to abandon the older, traditional renderings of Gen. 1 (i.e. the day-age and gap interpretations), and to embrace the new, innovative Seventh-Day Adventist version.{xiv} When Price’s project was picked up by more mainstream Christians Henry Morris and John Whitcomb,{xv} they included only a few passing references to Price (which Morris apologized for when he submitted the original manuscript to Price for review), and carefully eliminated any reference to the historical dependence of creation science on Seventh-Day Adventism and Ellen White’s visions.{xvi} Within a few years, “their once marginal views, inspired by the visions of an Adventist prophetess, now defined the very essence of creationism.”{xvii}

Until the last few decades most creationists would have regarded such notions [as young-earth creationism] as unnecessarily extreme. By the late nineteenth century even the most conservative Christian apologists readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life. With few exceptions, they accommodated the findings of historical geology either by interpreting the days of Genesis 1 to represent vast ages in the history of the earth (the so-called day-age theory) or by separating a creation “in the beginning” from a much later Edenic creation in six literal days (the gap theory). … The chief architect of flood geology, a term virtually synonymous with creation science and scientific creationism, was the self-described geologist George McCready Price, who during the early decades of the twentieth century stood virtually alone in insisting on the recent appearance of life and on a flood that rearranged the features of the earth. … It was not until the creationist renaissance of the 1960s, marked by the publication of Whitcomb and Morris’ Genesis Flood and the subsequent birth of the Creation Research Society, that fundamentalists in large numbers began to read Genesis in the Pricean manner and to equate his views with the intended message of Moses. By the 1980s the flood geologists had virtually co-opted the name creationism to describe the once marginal views of Price. This [was a] remarkable shift in the prevailing meaning of creationism—from the theologically orthodox day-age and gap theories that allowed the history of life on earth to span millions of years to a doctrine of suspect provenance (because of its Adventist origins) that compressed earth history into no more than ten thousand years.{xviii}

Another resemblance between flat-earth and young-earth creationism is the rejection of modern science as entirely contaminated by philosophical naturalism. However, while some of science is certainly interpreted under the tyranny of naturalism (cognitive science, for example), this is not the case for all, or even most, of science. After all, God has told us that he reveals himself through what he has created (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:18-20), so it would seem evident that the systematic observation of God’s creation could be trusted to reveal the truth about reality.

Other interpretations
Of course, the calendar-day view is not the only interpretation of Gen. 1. “Few passages in Scripture have prompted so many different interpretations as have the first two chapters of Genesis.”{xix} This is only to be expected, since throughout Church history, the creation account has been considered one of the most obscure and hard-to-understand passages in the entire Bible. In the early second century, Papias, Clemens, Pantaenus, and Ammonius “understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.”{xx} Three centuries later, Augustine wrote, “As for these ‘days,’ it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean.”{xxi} Martin Luther, while accepting the calendar-day interpretation, wrote that the creation account “contains things the most important, and at the same time the most obscure,” and, in light of all the differing interpretations of it made before his time, despaired of ever truly understanding Gen. 1 beyond the simple facts “that the world began, and was made of God, out of nothing.”{xxi} More recently, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the Presbyterian Church of America, and Westminster Theological Seminary have convened scholarly panels to examine this issue, and they have all concluded that the biblical text allows for a diversity of views.{xxiii}

In this book I will contrast the calendar-day interpretation with two other interpretations which I will treat as one. The day-age interpretation is the view that the days of creation were long periods of time,{xxiv} and has been held at least since the early Church fathers of the second century AD.{xxv} The analogical-day interpretation is the view that Gen.1 clearly presents the days of creation as being God’s days—i.e. they make up God’s workweek; the seventh day is God’s day of rest, etc.{xxvi} And since God’s experience of time is radically different from our own (Ps. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8), they shouldn’t be understood as humankind’s days, that is, as 24-hour periods.{xxvii} I am treating these as the same position because I think the latter view leads to the former: if the creation days are God’s days, and God’s experience of time is not the same as ours, then they were probably long periods, just as the “day of the Lord” refers to a period longer than a calendar day (Is. 13:6-13; Jer. 46:10; Ezek. 30:1-4; Joel 2; Amos 5:18-20; 1 Th. 5:1-3; 2 Pet. 3:10).{xxviii} I will hereafter refer to it simply as the day-age interpretation, partially because I think it’s a misnomer to call the creation days “analogical” because they refer to God’s days.{xxix}

Of course, there are more positions on this issue than just the calendar-day and day-age interpretations. Another view is the gap interpretation, which originated in the 16th century,{xxx} and was the standard interpretation of Gen. 1 in the first half of the 20th—so much so that some considered it the only valid position.{xxxi} This view interprets Gen. 1:2 as saying “and the earth became formless and empty” (rather than “was”), which implies an original creation that apparently went wrong, probably due to the rebellion of Satan. The rest of the creation account, therefore, describes God’s restoration or re-creation of the earth.{xxxii} A similar view is historical creationism, which is an interpretation that goes back to a medieval Jewish scholar named Rashi, and was picked up by some Christian scholars such as John Lightfoote in the 17th century. It maintains that the phrase “in the beginning” in Gen. 1:1 refers to an undefined period of time, and the rest of the creation account in Gen. 1 is describing the preparation of the promised land (i.e. Israel), not of the entire earth.{xxxiii} The framework interpretation, which can be traced back to Augustine, notes that the events described on days one, two, and three seem to parallel or correlate to those of days four, five, and six respectively. Thus, proponents of this view maintain that while Gen. 1 describes events which took place in space and time, it describes them with a literary framework, and shouldn’t be understood chronologically.{xxxiv} While all of these interpretations (and many others){xxxv} deserve their own extended analyses, in this book I will be primarily concerned with the day-age interpretation over against the calendar-day interpretation. Note, however, that all of these views originated before there was any scientific evidence for the antiquity of the earth.

This book represents my wrestling with the issue of the age of the earth and universe, and my response to the charge that any denial of young-earth creationism is motivated solely by scientific, rather than biblical, concerns. To this end, the first two parts answer this by looking at the arguments for and against the day-age interpretation from an exegetical standpoint and other issues in this debate.

The third part of this book also answers this charge, but in a different way. It deals with the nature of science, its relationship to the Bible, and why the Bible-believing Christian should accept its findings—although not uncritically of course. It should also be noted that each chapter ends with objections and responses. These are meant to re-emphasize points from the body of the chapter in a different format, or to close possible loopholes. As such I do not mean to imply that all of them have actually been made by young-earth proponents (although many have).

I treat the early chapters of Genesis as historical, and accept the traditional authorship given to the various books of the Bible. If you have a problem with this, feel free to take it as hypothetical; that is, as granting the historicity and authorship of these texts to the young-earth proponent in order to argue that, even on those terms, the Bible does not teach a young earth. On a similar note, one issue that I will not be addressing is the truth or falsity of biological evolution. Evolution will be mentioned, but not with an eye as to its ultimate truth value. For many Christians the age of the earth and evolution go hand-in-hand, but I think this is simply a mistake: evolution is a completely separate issue. Whether your views on evolution are pro or con, I am perfectly willing to grant them for the purpose of the present study.

I’m making this book available because I believe this issue is like a forest fire burning out of control: while it’s important not to throw gasoline on it, it wouldn’t be wise to just ignore it, either. I am very aware of my finitude, my capacity to make mistakes, and even to deceive myself. Part of the problem is that both sides are simply unable to seriously consider the validity of the other position. I would therefore like to call on the Christian community to pray that God would move in our hearts and minds so that we could seriously consider the claims of those we disagree with on this issue. If you believe in an old earth, ask God to open your mind to the possibility that the earth is young; and if you believe in a young earth, ask God to open your mind to the possibility that the earth is old.

I had three concerns that motivated me to post this book online: first, many Christians are confused and distressed by the apparent and much-publicized discrepancy between Christianity and science. If they can become confident that no such discrepancy exists, their spiritual discomfort will be greatly alleviated. Second, the age of the earth is an issue which has, very unfortunately, caused division among God’s people. It is an absolutely shameful situation that Christians refuse to fellowship with each other over such a trifling disagreement. Third, one of the main reasons people give for rejecting Christianity in the western world is that it teaches unscientific things, and the age of the earth is one of the offending parties mentioned most often.{xxxvi} If the Bible doesn’t really teach a young earth, clarifying this point would obviously have very important ramifications for evangelism, especially to the scientifically minded.

With regards to the last of these, I suspect that at least some of the people who reject Christianity as being incompatible with science are merely using this as a smoke screen to avoid the larger issues, so this will only force them to face these issues more directly (or to find another smoke screen). Others, however, are sincerely looking for truth, and in these cases the perceived incompatibility between science and Christianity isn’t a smoke screen, but an obstacle. If it can be removed, it should be.

Notes:
{i} Washington Irving (1828).
{ii} Aristotle, De Caelo; Ptolemy, Almagest; Jeffrey Burton Russell (1991).
{iii} See, for example, David N. Livingstone (1984).
{iv} Colin A. Russell (1989), 7.
{v} Samuel B. Rowbotham (1881). In addition to Rowbotham’s works, the two most prominent books are David Wardlaw Scott (1901); and C. S. DeFord (1992; originally published in 1931). Charles Johnson, the president of the Flat Earth Society, died March 19, 2001 (link), but there is still a Flat Earth Society discussion forum online (link). Additionally, here is a sampling of writings about flat-earth proponents: Walter Davenport (1927); Patrick Moore (1972), 16-29; Daniel Cohen (1972); Robert J. Schadewald (1980); (1992); John Michell (1984), 21-35; Carl Sifakis (1984), 226-9; David Gates with Jennifer Smith (1984). Further references can be found online (link).
{vi} Gleason Archer (1982), 93.
{vii} Russell (1991), 19-20; see also C. S. Lewis (1964), 28, 61.
{viii} Russell (1991), 32, 35. To clarify, Lactantius was condemned for his theological, not his geographical, views.
{ix} Russell (1991), 23-4.
{x} Isidore, Etymologies 48, 3:32, 14:1; Russell (1991), 87, note 53.
{xi} Ronald L. Numbers (1995).
{xii} Numbers (1993).
{xiii} Walter Martin (2003), 534-627.
{xiv} Numbers (1993).
{xv} John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris (1961).
{xvi} Numbers (1993).
{xvii} Numbers (1995), part 3.
{xviii} Numbers (1993). Just in case you find these claims dubious, Henry Morris himself endorsed this book as “a rich mine of information and historical insights” (back cover), although he states that these developments constitute the rediscovery of flood geology rather than the origin of it.
{xvix} John Sailhamer (1996), 21.
{xx} Papias, Fragments 9.
{xxi} Augustine, City of God 11:6.
{xxii} Martin Luther (1858), 23.
{xxiii} Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (1984), 283-348; “PCA Report of the Creation Study Committee”; “Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation: A Brief Statement.”
{xxiv} Hugh Ross (2004); Ross and Gleason Archer (2001a); Don Stoner (1997).
{xxv} See chapter 8 and the appendix.
{xxvi} C. John Collins (1994).
{xxvii} In saying that God’s experience of time is different from our own, I am not making any statement about the much more controversial issue of God’s metaphysical relationship to time. On this, see Gregory Ganssle (2001).
{xxviii} Biblical references to “the day of the LORD,” “that day,” etc. could be multiplied.
{xxix} I explain why in chapter 1.
{xxx} Numbers (1993).
{xxxi} Numbers (1993).
{xxxii}
{xxxiii} Sailhamer (1996); (1992), 81-102; Sailhamer (1998). Sailhamer’s references to early acceptance of this view include Chaim D. Shual (1988) and John Lightfoote (1642).
{xxxiv} N. H. Ridderbos (1957); Meredith Kline (1958); Mark D. Futato (1998); Kline and Lee Irons (2001a).
{xxxv} One particularly ingenious position is the revelatory-day view, which holds that the days of creation refer to the calendar days on which God revealed to Moses the content of Genesis 1. See P. J. Wiseman (1958).
{xxxvi} Hugh Ross (1998), 9.

Chapter 1: Some Preliminary Comments on Ancient Hebrew

2008-12-12T22:08:00.020+01:00

The verbal system
One of the first things we notice when we look at the ancient Hebrew language is that it only has five verbal modes: perfect, imperfect, and imperative as well as participles and infinitives. Imperative mode, participles, and infinitives correspond fairly closely to their English counterparts. Perfect mode refers to actions in their entirety, and is usually translated into past tense in English to represent completed events. Imperfect mode refers to actions in part, and is usually translated into present or future tense in English to represent incomplete events. However, this formula cannot be applied too stringently, for there are plenty of examples which run contrary to this general trend. For example, when God is the subject, verbs are sometimes in perfect mode to indicate that the events described are, in a sense, “complete”; that is, there is no possibility that they will not take place. Thus, we have the Hebrew tense known as “prophetic perfect” in which future events are described in perfect mode because there is no chance that the events described will not reach completion. “The perfect is employed to indicate actions the accomplishment of which lies indeed in the future, but is regarded as dependent upon such an unalterable determination of the will that it may be spoken of as having actually taken place: thus a resolution, promise, or decree, especially a Divine one, is frequently announced in the perfect tense.”{i}

Because of the simplicity of the ancient Hebrew verbal system in comparison to English, we have to be careful when we translate the former into the latter. For example, when the perfect mode is used to say that someone performed an action, we have to use the context to determine whether it should be translated as past tense (“he did”), present perfect (“he has done”), past perfect (“he had done”), or even present or future tense.

Semantic range
Another interesting facet of the ancient Hebrew language is that it has a vocabulary much smaller than English: a few thousand words versus half a million. Because of this, Hebrew words generally have broader meanings and more literal definitions than English words, because they have to refer to more diverse concepts.{ii} In studying how a language uses a specific term to signify different ideas, we discover its “semantic range”; that is, the general scope of definitions that a term can be understood to mean. When we try to determine which meaning is most appropriate in a specific usage, we have to look at the immediate context, the surrounding context, and continue expanding outward with more general contexts (the book, the author, the genre, etc.) until we reach the overall context of the Bible.{iii} If we try to apply a definition to a term that contradicts another Bible passage, this should tell us to go back and look at the immediate context again to see if another definition is possible.

Two terms in Gen. 1 serve to illustrate the fact that Hebrew terms are generally more elastic than their English counterparts. Erets (land) can be defined as the ground or soil (Jdg. 6:37-39), a territory, kingdom or country (Exod. 10:15) or all the people therein (1 Sam. 14:25), the country of Israel in particular (Gen. 13:9; Deut. 34:1) or all the people therein (2 Sam. 15:23), the known world (Gen. 47:13), or all the people therein (Gen. 41:57; 1 Kgs. 10:24), or the planet earth in its entirety (Exod. 19:5) or all the people therein (Gen. 18:25).{iv} In fact, all of the above verses use the phrase kol haerets, “the whole land.” Shamayim (heavens or sky) can refer to the air or space around us (Gen. 21:17-19; 22:11),{v} the air or space above us (1 Sam. 17:44-46), the earth’s atmosphere (Deut. 4:17), outer space (Deut. 4:19), or the spiritual realm where God dwells (Deut. 26:15).{vi} Thus one could correctly say that birds fly in the heavens, clouds float in the heavens, stars shine in the heavens, and angels dwell in the heavens. Moreover, when these two terms (shamayim and erets) are combined, they form what is known as a “merism.” “A merism combines two words to express a single idea. A merism expresses ‘totality’ by combining two contrasts or two extremes. For example, David says in Ps. 139:2, ‘O Lord, you know my sitting down and my rising up.’ This merism means that the Lord knows everything about David. The concept of ‘everything’ is expressed by combining the two opposites ‘my sitting down’ and ‘my rising up.’”{vii}

Thus, when we put shamayim and erets together, this should be translated as the entire universe, since it means “sky and land,” or even more basically, “everything above and everything below.” This is, in fact, what happens in Gen. 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” i.e. the physical universe. “Down to the latest period the Biblical Hebrew writers lacked accepted generic terms for such general ideas as ‘the (created or visible) universe,’ ‘the animal kingdom,’ ‘(the totality of) man’s being,’ and constructiones per merismum were their method of expressing such abstractions. The recognition of this limitation of the language’s resources is of importance for our understanding of the Hebrew mind.”{viii}

The meaning of “yom”
But what specifically about yom, the Hebrew word for day? The root meaning of yom is daylight, and any meaning beyond this, including a 24-hour period, is an extended definition.{ix} However, this doesn’t mean much: a term’s root meaning does not correspond to its literal meaning, much less to its entire semantic range. To think it does is to commit an exegetical error known as the “root fallacy.”{x}

So how do we determine whether any given definition of a term qualifies as a literal one? Unfortunately, there’s no cut-and-dry method. Sæbø has argued, specifically in reference to yom, that how far beyond the root meaning one can ascribe the appellation “literal” is largely a subjective judgment.{xi} The problem here is that people tend to look at whether a particular use of an English term qualifies as literal, and then apply this to the Hebrew term that corresponds to it. But this method is invalid: just as Hebrew terms tend to have broader semantic ranges, so they tend to have more literal definitions than their English counterparts. Just because a definition isn’t literal in English doesn’t mean that it’s not literal in ancient Hebrew. This should be obvious: since Hebrew has a much smaller vocabulary, Hebrew words will, on average, have to have many more literal definitions than their English counterparts in order to be able to refer to more concepts literally.

The Hebrew lexicons all give several definitions of yom. In addition to its root meaning, it can also be defined as the period of daylight (roughly twelve hours), a 24-hour period, or an undefined period of time. No distinction is made as to whether the latter definition is not as literal as the others.{xii} Often, yom refers to an undefined span of time in which a significant event (particularly an act of God) takes place, a point that has obvious relevance for the days of creation. For example, the Old Testament often refers to a time of judgment, sometimes in reference to the seven-year period of tribulation, as a day of anger (Lam. 2:21), wrath (Job 20:28; Zeph. 1:15, 18), visitation (Mic. 7:4), destruction (Job 21:30), darkness (Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15), trouble (Ps. 102:2), calamity (Deut. 32:35; Jer. 18:17), adversity (Prov. 24:10), vengeance (Prov. 6:34; Isa. 61:2), slaughter (Isa. 30:25; Jer. 12:3), evil (Jer. 17:17; Amos 6:3), or of the LORD (Isa. 2:12; 13:6; Zeph. 1:14).{xiii}

The meaning of yom is thus close to the English word “day” inasmuch as we sometimes refer to our grandparents’ day or the day of the Reformers. However, in English such usage is metaphorical. Given the smaller vocabulary of ancient Hebrew, the lack of any distinctions made between this and other definitions of yom in Hebrew lexicons, and the elastic use of yom in the Bible, it seems fair to consider this a literal meaning. Thus, two day-age proponents have argued, “Nowhere in our analysis of Genesis 1 do we rely on a figurative or metaphorical treatment of words and phrases.”{xiv}

An objection that is frequently leveled at the claim that the days of creation could be understood as long periods of time is that when yom is modified by a number in the Bible its meaning is limited to calendar days. This objection is wrong on several levels.

1. Yom plus a numerical modifier is used in the Bible to refer to long periods of time (Hos. 6:2-3; Zech. 14:7-8).{xv}

2. Even if there were no examples of yom being modified by a number and referring to anything other than calendar days, this could merely indicate that there is no other occasion in the Bible to enumerate long time periods. This is verified by the fact that when yom plus a numerical modifier is used to refer to calendar days, it’s used to describe days of human activity or human history as opposed to days of divine activity or natural history.

3. There is no connection between having a noun modified by a number and limiting the definition of the noun in question. Numbers in Hebrew (and English) are merely used to delineate nouns or to relate nouns to each other. They do not have the characteristic of limiting the nouns they are qualifying to particular definitions. Thus, there is no reason to think that they limit the definition of yom or any other noun.

Other options?
At this point, we must address the allegation that, while yom could refer to indefinite periods of time, there are better words that could have accomplished this with greater clarity. The first, and most obvious, thing to note here is that, regardless of whether the days of creation refer to calendar days or long periods, they are clearly meant to be the archetype for humankind’s workweek: just as God worked for six of his days and rested for one, so we should work for six of our days and rest for one (Exod. 20:9-11; 31:12-17). Obviously, the text had to use yom in order to communicate this. No other word would do it.{xvi}

But let’s ignore this for the time being. In order for another term to be substituted for yom, and to do the least violence to the text, it would at least have to be a singular noun capable of being delineated sequentially, since this is how yom is used in Gen. 1 (one X, a second X, a third X, etc.). Are there any terms that qualify?

The word that is most frequently suggested in place of yom is ‘olam, a term usually understood as “perpetual” or “everlasting.”{xvii} While it can occasionally be used to refer to “past times” in a general sense, “it does not occur independently (as a subject or as an object) but only in connection with prepositions indicating direction (min ‘since,’ ‘ad until, le ‘up to’) or as an adverbial accusative of direction or finally as the modifying genitive in the construct relationship.”{xviii} As such it could never be used to delineate successive periods of time. Eventually, in post-biblical times it did take on the meaning in question, but this is too late to have any relevance.{xix}

Two articles in young-earth creationist publications name several possibilities which the authors claim would have functioned better than yom in communicating seven sequential time periods of undefined length.{xx} They argue, for example, that the word for “year” (shanah){xxi} could have been used metaphorically to refer to unspecified periods of time. But yom is frequently used throughout the Old Testament to refer to time spans of varying lengths, whereas shanah is not; obviously yom would be preferable and less ambiguous. (Plus, it seems painfully obvious to me that if shanah were used, these authors would be arguing emphatically that it must be understood literally as periods of 365 days, and not as a metaphor.) They also note that yammim, which is simply the plural form of yom often refers to long periods of time.{xxii} But this presents its own difficulties: yammim is often used without any qualification in the Old Testament to refer to a year (Exod. 13:10; Lev. 25:29; Num. 9:22; Jdg. 17:10; 21:19; 1 Sam. 2:19; 27:7; 2 Sam. 14:26). That is, this term referred to a time period of a specific length, and thus could not be used to refer to periods of unspecific lengths, at least not without even greater ambiguity than the singular form presents. Not to mention the fact that it is plural, and so couldn’t be substituted for yom in the singular. Another option I’ve seen one author suggest is the term ribbo,{xxiii} but this word simply means “myriad” or “many” or “ten thousand.”{xxiv} As such, it functions either as an adjective or as the modifier in a construct phrase, and couldn’t be used to delineate anything, much less periods of time.

Another word I’ve seen suggested is dor, which means “generation” (from the root “circle”), and sometimes indirectly refers to periods of time.{xxv} The fact that it does so indirectly is problematic, since it can also simply refer to a congregation or group of people without any reference to time (Ps. 73:15). Thus, if this term were used in place of yom to describe the days of creation, it could be reasonably understood as not referring to the passage of time or sequential time periods. Another problem is that, when it does refer to periods of time, it often means the period from one’s birth to the birth of his/her offspring. This could then be understood to entail evolution (an alternative that, I suspect, most calendar-day advocates would be unwilling to consider), since it could imply that the elements of one dor are producing the elements of the next. A similar word is toledot, which means “generations” or “records” or “genealogies”.{xxvi} But again, this term only refers to the passage of time obliquely if it does so at all. Moreover, it only occurs in the plural, and so couldn’t be substituted for yom in the singular.

Another term I’ve seen suggested is mo’ad (or mo’adah) which means “appointed” and usually refers to some kind of meeting between God and people, such as the Tent of Meeting (Exod. 33:7-11).{xxvii} As with dor, the passage of time is only an indirect aspect of this word when it’s an aspect at all—it can also refer to an appointed place (Josh. 8:14; Ps. 74:8; Lam. 2:6).{xxviii}

There are several other terms that strike me as being much more plausible. Two synonymous terms that fall into this category are zemen,{xxix} and the much more common ‘et.{xxx} Both of these words mean “time,” and are used to answer “when” questions. “In contrast to the Ger. word ‘Zeit’ or the Eng. ‘time,’ however, ‘et has a more limited range of meaning, insofar as it does not refer to temporal duration or to an extended period of time … but to some definite point in time or period of time.”{xxxi} Note two things from this quote: first, while this term can refer to a period of time, it cannot refer to an extended period of time, and would thus be inappropriate in Gen. 1 to refer to ages or epochs; but this is not the case for yom. Second, it can only refer to a definite or specific period of time—not to an indefinite one; whereas, again, yom can refer to an indefinite time period. These conclusions also apply to another word for time, pa’am.{xxxii}

So it seems to me that most of these terms simply could not be substituted for yom in Gen. 1 at all. And those that (possibly) could would create much more significant problems than yom does. Thus, none of these terms would delineate long periods of indefinite length as clearly and unambiguously as yom. For this purpose, yom is the best word that could have been used. And when we remember that Gen. 1 is emphasizing the parallel between God’s work of creation and humankind’s workweek, it becomes the only word which could have been used.

Qualification
However, some would argue, I’ve limited this study too much. I have only tried to find individual terms that could have been substituted in place of yom, rather than looking for any alternate way of describing long time periods. For example, the text could certainly have clarified that the days of creation were not calendar days by adding a qualifying adjective to yom (such as rab, “long”), or a statement that clearly stated such. To my mind, this is a strong objection. There are two points to make about it:

First, it is obvious that the days of creation are portrayed as God’s days (since they comprise his workweek) and, as such, are already qualified. Since the creation days are God’s days, we have to ask whether the Bible represents God’s experience of time as being the same as our own; and I would argue that the Bible clearly answers this in the negative (Ps. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8). It would certainly be nicer if there were further clarification, but it would also be superfluous and redundant.

Personally, I would have appreciated some statement in Gen. 1 to the effect of, “The days of creation are God’s days, and God’s days are not the same temporal length as humanity’s days.” For that matter, I would have appreciated a statement somewhere in the Bible that clearly states the relationship between Jesus’ divine and human natures,{xxxiii} or explains how God’s sovereignty is compatible with human free will.{xxxiv} But God didn’t write a systematic theology, and I suspect that’s for our own good.

Second, this objection seems to assume that, absent any explicit statement that the days of creation are not calendar days, the best interpretation is that they are calendar days. In other words, it assumes that the calendar-day interpretation is essentially the fallback position. I disagree, because I think the context of Gen. 1 and other implicit aspects of the text support the day-age interpretation over against the calendar-day interpretation. This is the subject of the following chapter.

Objections and responses
Objection: Since the first day of creation involves the separation of night from day, any word would have been better than yom to describe the days of creation if they were meant to be understood as long periods of time, since to use yom in this context would inevitably lead to confusion.

Response: The confusion that yom can cause is merely how long a period the days of creation are: 24-hours or longer periods of time. In comparison to the possible misunderstandings that other terms could cause (such as not requiring or even denying the concept of creation in time), this is insignificant. Moreover, the calendar-day interpretation, just as much as the day-age interpretation, holds that yom has two different meanings in Gen. 1:5: daylight, and a calendar day. And again, only yom could draw the parallel between God’s workweek and our own.

Objection: Yom only refers to an undefined time span when it’s prefixed with a preposition and functions as an idiom to mean “when” or “then.”

Response: This is false. There are plenty of references to undefined time spans (such as the day of the LORD) in which yom isn’t prefixed with a preposition (Deut. 32:35; Isa. 2:12; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18; Ob. 1:15; Zeph. 1:7; Mal. 3:23; etc.).

Objection: If the days of creation are meant to be understood as God’s days instead of humankind’s days, this means that they are anthropomorphic. But if they are anthropomorphic, yom is not being used literally.

Response: Just because something is anthropomorphic, it doesn’t mean that it’s figurative or allegorical.{xxxv} While the ascription to God of characteristics he does not have, such as hands (Exod. 3:20; 7:5; 9:3; etc.) or eyes (Deut. 11:12; Ps. 11:4; 34:15; etc.) is clearly metaphorical, there are examples when this is not the case, such as references to God’s thoughts (Ps. 33:11; 40:5; 92:5; Isa. 55:8-9; Jer. 29:11; 49:20; 50:45; 51:29; Amos 4:13; Mic. 4:12) or his heart or mind (lev or levav;{xxxvi} Gen. 6:6; 8:21; 1 Sam. 2:35; 13:14; 1 Kgs. 9:3; 2 Kgs. 10:30; Ps. 33:11; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 44:21). In these latter examples our possession of a property or capacity is derived from God’s possession of it in a higher or purer fashion—perhaps they should be called “deimorphic” when ascribed to human beings rather than the other way around. The reason why we can understand God in human concepts at all is because, being created in his image, the very origin of these concepts rests in him. Since Scripture clearly represents humankind’s workweek in precisely this manner, i.e. as derivative and representative of God’s week of creation (Exod. 20:8-12; 31:12-17), it does not seem like much of a stretch to posit that, just as God’s ways are not our ways, so might his days not be our days.

Objection: Even liberal scholars who reject the message of Gen. 1 don’t believe that the days of creation can be reasonably interpreted as anything but 24-hour periods. For example, James Barr wrote in 1984 that, “So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers … that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”{xxxvii}

Response: Calendar-day advocates commonly refer to this quotation, but there is at least one major problem with it: Barr was incorrect.

…the statement was wrong when made, because Gleason Archer and Walter Kaiser, among many other highly reputable Bible scholars, did and do support the long-day interpretation. … For example, when the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy deliberated on the subject of the duration of the Genesis 1 creation days at their second summit held in Chicago in 1982, none of the Hebrew and Old Testament professors who participated concluded that the Genesis creation accounts mandated six consecutive 24-hour creation days. … The only possible defense for Barr’s statement is that he takes such a biased definition of “world-class university” that only institutions hostile to evangelical Christianity are included.{xxxviii}

Objection: The “calendar-day interpretation” is not an interpretation. It’s simply what the Bible says. The days of creation are days. That’s it.

Response: Well, if the word “interpretation” is a stumbling block, substitute the word “understanding” in its place. Your interpretation of a text is just your understanding of it. So then the question becomes: is it possible for you to misunderstand what the Bible says? Everyone would concede this, and Christians especially so, in light of the belief that the human race is fallen and imperfect.

Another point to make here is that as long as a term has more than one possible definition (and all terms do), then by analyzing the text to see which of these definitions best fits a particular context, we are interpreting. Language is not like mathematics or symbolic logic, where a symbol has a fixed meaning that never varies. As Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston points out, “…our language is not in any case a simple photograph of bare facts. It expresses interpretation. Hence it cannot be used as a touchstone of truth. And philosophy cannot be simply uncritical of so-called ordinary language. Nor can it be critical without indulging in theory. Needless to say, this is not a discovery of the present writer. It is a matter of common recognition.”{xxxix}

Bear in mind that this does not mean that any interpretation is just as good as any other. There are good and bad interpretations. Sometimes we will not be able to be very certain of our interpretations, but many times we can be. No one would deny, for example, that the references to Jesus’ resurrection taking place on the third day refers to anything other than the Sunday following his crucifixion. The context makes this clear beyond any reasonable doubt. But we must be wary of comparing this to other texts, when the context is less clear, and we can mistake our understanding for the text itself.

Notes:
{i} S. R. Driver (1892), 17.
{ii} Of course, there are examples of ancient Hebrew terms being more specific than their English counterparts, but these are exceptions to the general rule.
{iii} William W. Klein, et al. (1993), 161-71.
{iv} BDB, 75-6; TWOT, 74-5 (167); GHCL, 81.
{v} Dallas Willard (1998), 67-74.
{vi} BDB, 1029-30; TWOT, 935-6 (2407); GHCL, 884.
{vii} John Sailhamer (1996), 56.
{viii} A. M. Honeyman (1951), 17-8.
{ix} M. Sæbø (1990), 6:25.
{x} D. A. Carson (1996), 28-33.
{xi} Sæbø (1990), 6:25.
{xii} BDB 398-401; TWOT 370-1 (852); GHCL 341; OTWS, 109.
{xiii} R. A. Torrey (1970), 220-2.
{xiv} Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer (2001c), 200.
{xv} These passages are dealt with in more detail in chapter 5.
{xvi} It’s often argued that in order for this parallel to hold, God’s days must be temporally identical to humankind’s days. I address this in chapter 4.
{xvii} BDB, 761-3; TWOT, 672-3 (1631a); GHCL, 634.
{xviii} TWOT, 2:672-3.
{xix} James Barr (1969), 73, 123-5.
{xx} James Stanbaugh (1991); Russell Grigg (1997).
{xxi} BDB, 1040; TWOT, 941-2 (2419a); GHCL, 840.
{xxii} BDB, 399 (4-5); see note 13.
{xxiii} Jobe R. Martin (2000), 596, n. 18. Ironically, Martin suggests that yom could be used to refer to long periods of time in Gen. 1, but thinks that the numerical qualifier limits its meaning to 24-hour periods.
{xxiv} BDB, 914; TWOT, 826-7 (2099e); GHCL, 754.
{xxv} BDB, 189-90; TWOT, 186-7 (418b); GHCL, 194.
{xxvi}
{xxvii} BDB, 417-8; TWOT, 387-9 (878); GHCL, 457-8.
{xxviii} Moreover, when it means appointed time, it always refers to the festivals or seasons which God has appointed for his people to commemorate—but not to the original event being commemorated itself. As such, it refers to either future or repeated events, neither of which is true of the days of creation. I don’t see any intrinsic reason why it couldn’t be used to refer to the original event being commemorated, but it is never used this way in Scripture, and there are plenty of opportunities for it to do so.
{xxix} BDB, 273-4; TWOT, 245 (557); GHCL, 248.
{xxx} BDB, 773-4; TWOT, 680-1 (1650b); GHCL, 661.
{xxxi} TLOT, 2:952-3.
{xxxii}
{xxxiii} Millard J. Erickson (1991), 41-86, 531-76.
{xxxiv} Carson (2002); William Lane Craig (1999).
{xxxv} C. John Collins (1994), 120-1.
{xxxvi} BDB, 523-5; TWOT, 466-7 (1071a).
{xxxvii} James Barr to David C. C. Watson, April 23, 1984, quoted in J. Ligon Duncan and David W. Hall (2001a), 23.
{xxxviii} Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer (2001b), 79, n. 13.
{xxxix} Frederick Copleston (1966), 506.

Chapter 2: Day One

2008-12-12T22:07:00.018+01:00

Some contextual issues
“God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” This verse, Gen. 1:5, is often appealed to as the principal factor in favor of the calendar-day interpretation. Apparently the reasoning is that the immediate context trumps the surrounding contexts. But this is incorrect: the immediate context is certainly the most important element, but if the surrounding contexts more clearly define the issue, then they take precedence. One of the key principles of exegesis is to interpret the unclear in light of the clear.

Another line of thought is that since this verse describes the first day of creation with various terms for parts of a calendar day—in particular the Hebrew terms for “evening” and “morning”—this verifies that a normal calendar day is in view. However we have to bear in mind that the creation narrative is describing God’s workweek: his six days of work and one day of rest. In this context, the use of these terms could just as easily have been intended to emphasize the parallel between God’s and humankind’s workweeks, rather than to emphasize an identity between them. The mere use of these terms by itself does not allow us to conclude which of these two interpretations was the intended meaning of the author. Before we can draw a conclusion, we have to find biblical evidence to support either the thesis that God’s experience of time is the same as ours, or that it is not.

Another contextual issue involves the nature of light and darkness. When Gen. 1:5 says “God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night,’” we tend to insert our concepts of day as a temporal period of light and night as a temporal period of darkness into the text, and then add them up to another definition of “day”: the period of light plus the period of darkness. This is certainly understandable, since these periods make up the days that we experience. But this is not what the text actually says. “Day” merely refers to the phenomenon of light and “night” to the phenomenon of darkness, without reference to their temporal length.

The reason this is a contextual issue is because the concept of day as a temporal period is introduced later in Gen. 1:14-17 on the fourth day of creation. Here, the sun, moon, and stars are established as calendrical markers, specifically “to separate the day from the night,” and to “serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.” In other words, the concept of the calendar day is explicitly introduced on day four. This makes it very difficult to maintain that the three days preceding it should be understood as calendar days. This point has been recognized since at least the time of the early Church.{i}

So, to reiterate, on day one light is introduced, and is contrasted with the darkness that had been present up to that point. But the concept of day as a specific period of time is not introduced until later (on day four). Therefore, we should not read this concept into Gen. 1:5. To do so is eisegesis rather than exegesis.

A further argument
To my mind, these points make a strong case against understanding the first day of creation as a calendar day. However, I think we can go a step further: I believe a good argument can be made that not only was the first day not a calendar day, but that Gen. 1:5 even distinguishes the first day from the phenomena of light and darkness. For our purposes, this verse can be divided into three segments: the first, verse 5a, we have just gone over as defining the concepts of light and darkness: “God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’” The third, 5c, names the first day of creation: “The first day” (yom echad). It is my contention that verse 5b, the second segment in this verse, “And there was evening, and there was morning” (vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer), creates a strong discontinuity between the segments on either side of it. This suggests that a specific, albeit implicit, distinction is being made between the concepts of day/night or light/darkness (in verse 5a) and the first day of creation (in 5c). This discontinuity consists of five elements: 1) the unique use of the verb vayahi; 2) the use of the terms ‘ereb and boqer; 3) the ordering of the terms ‘ereb and boqer; 4) the presence of the phrase vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer in its entirety; and 5) the use of the phrase yom echad in verse 5c.

The unique use of “vayahi”
The phrase “vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer” (“and there was evening, and there was morning”) has the unique characteristic of having the verb vayahi connected via a “maqqeph” (like a hyphen in English, which ties two words together to form a single unit) to a term, and then having the same pattern immediately repeated with another term. This is an anomaly. First of all, vayahi is the vayyiqtol form of the Hebrew verb “to be” (hayyah), and this form of this particular verb is usually employed as an introductory statement, similar to a new paragraph in English. To use it twice in such close quarters is extremely unusual.

The introduction of independent narratives, or of a new section of the narrative, by means of an imperfect consecutive, likewise aims at a connexion, though again loose and external [i.e. antithetical], with that which has been narrated previously. Such a connexion is especially often established by means of [vayahi] and it came to pass. … This loose connexion by means of [vayahi] is especially common, when the narrative or a new section of it begins with any expression of time.{ii}

Nowhere else in the entire Old Testament is vayahi used like it is in Gen. 1:5. While there are other instances in which it is repeated in relatively close proximity, they either represent clear breaks in which the second example begins a new focus (frequently seen at the end of a chapter and the beginning of the next), or they are examples of vayahi being used in an idiom (such as vayahi Adonai et [“and Adonai was with…”], vayahi bebayet [“and he was in the house of…”], or vayahi-ken [“and it was so”]) which is employed in concert with another idiom or with a more customary use of vayahi. But even if we ignore this, these examples still don’t have vayahi being used in such a close proximity with itself as Gen. 1:5 does, in which it is tied to a word via a maqqeph and then immediately repeated with another term by means of another maqqeph.

Second, in the Hebrew language the verb “to be” does not even have to be present once but is frequently assumed. In fact, the past tense of this verb is assumed several times in Gen. 1.{iii} This doesn’t mean that there is some special meaning implied whenever the verb is used, but it certainly suggests that there is some out of the ordinary meaning being conveyed when it’s used twice. The author could have eliminated this difficulty by simply writing va‘ereb vaboqer, or even vayahi-‘ereb vaboqer. Instead, he chose to employ a usage which is virtually unique.

Third, when a verb is repeated in close proximity in Hebrew, the first one is in the imperfect form (vayyiqtol), and the second one is perfect and doesn’t have a vav (or waw) prefix (the vav prefix essentially reverses the mode so vav plus an imperfect verb [or vayyiqtol], is understood as perfect and vice-versa). But this is not the case here: we have vav plus yahi (vayyiqtol) and then vav plus yahi again. This goes against the standard grammatical pattern of ancient Hebrew. “It is a fundamental rule of Biblical narrative style that verbs describing acts that took place in sequence should head their respective clauses, and take the form of the imperfect with consecutive Waw [or vav]. … But when the same verb occurs twice in two consecutive clauses, then the second verb usually occupies the second or third place in the sentence and is in the perfect.”{iv}

In other words, if the verb had to be repeated we would expect it to say “vayahi … hayyah …” instead of “vayahi … vayahi …” The fact that this repetition does not fit into the normal use of verbs in Hebrew implies that we are not supposed to understand this passage in the way we normally would.

The use of “‘ereb” and “boqer”
While it is often thought that the use of the words “evening” (‘ereb){v} and “morning” (boqer){vi} virtually confirms that a day/night cycle is in view, these terms seem very awkward given the context. We have just had the phenomena of light and darkness defined in verse 5a: “God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’” From this, it is assumed that “the first day” refers to a single cycle of these events.{vii} But if we were meant to understand the first day as referring to these phenomena, why didn’t the author describe it by using two of the terms he just used to define these phenomena? Why not write, “And God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness He called ‘night.’ And there was day and there was night—day one”? Or, “And there was light and there was darkness—day one”? The author goes out of his way to use different terms to define the first day of creation from the terms he just defined as light (or){viii} and darkness (choshek).{ix} This strongly implies that, whatever the first day is, it is not referring to the experience of these phenomena, much less an individual cycle of them.

This maneuver is particularly significant when we recall how small the vocabulary of ancient Hebrew was (a few thousand words). While biblical poetry often repeats a statement with different terminology, I don’t believe there is any reason to think that Gen. 1 is written in a poetic, non-literal genre. It is written as narrative.{x}

It may be objected that if the author were trying to distinguish the first day of creation from the phenomena of light and darkness, he would not have used terms that evoke these concepts to some degree, such as “morning” and “evening.” There are other words he could have used which would not have suggested them. But this is not as evident as one may think. For one thing, the small vocabulary of ancient Hebrew severely limits the possibilities here, and just as yom has more than one meaning in Hebrew, so do ‘ereb and boqer.{xi} Moreover, in all but a few verses,{xii} whenever boqer and ‘ereb appear together in close proximity in the Old Testament, they are used with prepositions which relate them to each other (i.e. from morning to evening; etc.). This, of course, doesn’t mean that these words can’t have their usual meaning unless they’re used in concert with prepositions, it just means that the biblical evidence does not commit us to one side or the other due to common use. The objection seems to assume that there are better words to use in Hebrew, but this is by no means clear. In fact, the point being made here is that there are better words which could have been used to define the first day as the phenomena of light and darkness; namely the two pairs of terms that were just defined as the phenomena of light and darkness: or and choshek (light and darkness), and yom and layelah{xiii} (day and night).

Another point to make here is one that has already been made: Gen. 1 is showing the parallel between God’s workweek and our own. The use of ‘ereb and boqer has the positive effect of being able to emphasize this parallelism, while simultaneously distinguishing the first day from the phenomena of light and darkness that have just been defined.

It may be the case that evening and morning are functioning here as a merism in which two opposites are used to express entirety, in the same way that the phrase “heavens and earth” is used to refer to the entire physical universe.{xiv} Otherwise we are left with the conspicuous absence of all the intervening time between sunset and sunrise.

The phrase “there was evening, there was morning…” is actually a Sumerian literary figure that pairs opposites together to describe totality. Thus “evening-morning” means a complete phase of time within the total creative cycle; it emphasizes the completeness or comprehensiveness of the process, not the specific period of time in which that process was accomplished. The totality of creation, phase by phase, may have been thus depicted without any necessary reference to a defined time period. … If the early Genesis material reflects Sumerian culture, the use of “evening-morning” would preclude current concepts of a day and point instead to a phase or general time period.{xv}

In other words, it may very well be that when ‘ereb and boqer were used together without being linked to each other via prepositions, they were understood idiomatically to represent collectivity and completeness rather than the elements of a calendar day and, thus, were the best two terms the author could have used to distinguish the first day of creation from a 24-hour period.

Excursus: Daniel 8:13-14, 26
Above, I claimed that in all but a few verses, whenever ‘ereb and boqer are used in conjunction, they are used with prepositions which relate them to each other. One of these exceptions is significant: Dan. 8:13-14, 26. Here we have a prophecy that the temple will be desecrated and the tamid (“continual”) sacrifices will be suspended for 2,300 “‘ereb boqer.” This may be understood to mean 2,300 days, in which case we have a biblical example of these two terms being used in conjunction to refer to a 24-hour period—and thus the same interpretation could be defended in Gen. 1:5. Most scholars, however, believe that, since the tamid sacrifices were offered in the evening and morning, this prophecy is saying that 2,300 of these sacrifices wouldn’t be offered. Three of the primary reasons for maintaining this latter view are that 1) there does not appear to be any reason to use the phrase ‘ereb boqer instead of just yom if this is a prophecy about a period of 2,300 days; 2) the evening and morning sacrifices are the specific contextual referent; and 3) if we understand ‘ereb boqer as referring to 2,300 tamid sacrifices (which would then correspond to a period of 1,150 days), then this prophecy was fulfilled in 164 BC (the first Hanukkah) when Judas Maccabaeus rededicated the temple and reestablished the tamid sacrifices three years after Antiochus Epiphanes abolished them and erected an idolatrous altar in the temple in 167 BC (1 Macc. 4:52-4). If we understand ‘ereb boqer as 24-hour periods, however, there is no apparent terminus a quo to which this fulfillment would correspond (171 BC), much less anything as specific as the abolition of the tamid sacrifices. Thus, the preponderance of evidence supports the view that the reference to 2,300 ‘ereb boqer in Dan. 8:13-14, 26 does not refer to 2,300 days, but rather to 2,300 tamid sacrifices.{xvi}

The ordering of “‘ereb” and “boqer”
In addition to the mere use of these two terms, their ordering is very unusual: for the ancient Hebrews, the calendar day was calculated from evening to evening (Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:32; Neh. 13:19; Ps. 55:17).{xvii} Thus, to end the first day of creation with “and there was evening, and there was morning” would seem to contradict the Hebraic concept of the calendar day, since it would have the first creation day ending at morning instead of at evening. In fact, this detail has troubled many rabbinical commentators throughout history: “In order to remove this inconsistency, Jewish exegetes, both medieval and modern … sought to place forced and improbable interpretations on the words, and there was evening and there was morning.”{xviii} The author could have written “there was morning and there was evening,” or, better, he could have clearly defined the first day of creation as a calendar day by writing “there was evening and there was evening.” The fact that the first day of creation is represented as concluding at morning, and not at evening in accordance with the Hebrew definition of a calendar day strongly implies that it is not meant to be understood as a calendar day.

What are the options with these terms? Well, if we ignore the previous issue involving their use in the first place, if the author had written “and there was morning and there was evening,” the days of creation would probably be referring to daylight, since this is what comes between morning and evening. If he had written “and there was evening and there was evening,” the days of creation would clearly refer to calendar days, since this was the Hebrew definition of a calendar day. The only unusual statements would have been to write “and there was morning and there was morning,” or “and there was evening and there was morning.” The first would have been problematic, since it’s opposed to the Hebrew concept of a calendar day, and thus could be interpreted as distinguishing the creation days from calendar days. However, one could also argue that it may just be referring to the interval between two consecutive occurrences of this phase.

And this leaves us with what the Bible actually says: “and there was evening and there was morning.” This phrase isn’t referring to the interval between evening and morning, since this would neither be a period of daylight nor a 24-hour period. Nor can it be referring to the end of a calendar day, since it then would not be ending the day at evening, in accordance with the Hebrew calendar, but at morning. The placement of evening before morning is extremely problematic as long as we try to understand the days of creation as calendar days. If we understand it as an interruption in the flow of the passage, and as making up a discontinuity between the previous statement (which defines the phenomena of light and darkness) and the following statement (which names the first day of creation), it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps, it may be suggested, ‘ereb and boqer are only being used to symbolically represent the phenomena of darkness and light respectively. While there are a few biblical examples of this, the only other passages that use both terms and could reasonably be understood in this way are clearly poetic (Ps. 30:5), whereas Gen. 1 is, again, narrative. Not to mention the fact that this runs up against the prior objection that the author had just defined the phenomena of darkness and light with different terminology. Moreover, when these concepts are referred to elsewhere in Gen. 1, the term signifying light comes first, and the term signifying darkness comes second.{xix} But this is obviously not the case with the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning.” If “evening” was meant to symbolically refer to darkness, and “morning” was meant to symbolically refer to light, then their order is reversed from the rest of Gen. 1. Besides, proponents of the calendar-day interpretation tend to insist that their view is the literal one, and any denial of it is a refusal to take the Bible literally. So it would seem odd to defend this position by insisting that “evening” and “morning” are being used symbolically.

Another difficulty is that, if the first day of creation is ending at morning, it consisted of a period of darkness (vs. 2: “darkness was over the surface of the deep”), followed by a period of light (vs. 3-5a: “And God said, ‘Let there be light’”), followed by another period of darkness (vs. 5b: “and there was evening, and there was morning”). This strongly suggests that ‘ereb and boqer are not referring to parts of a calendar day at all. They are probably either referring to the completion of the first period of creation and the dawning of the next, or are being used as a merism to refer to the first day of creation as a whole, without reference to its temporal length. Either way, they are not referring to the phenomena of light and darkness, and thus cannot be used to defend the calendar-day interpretation.

Thus, by ending the first day of creation at morning, the author contradicts the Hebrew calendar in which each 24-hour period ended at evening. Therefore, the first day of creation is probably not referring to a calendar day.

Excursus: “yom” and “layelah”
Note that these difficulties do not arise with yom (day) and layelah (night), since when these two terms are mentioned together in Hebrew (as well as in most ancient Semitic languages), they are merely being used idiomatically in reference to a calendar day. That is, they are not meant to be understood sequentially (as a day followed by a night), but rather as a simple reference to a calendar day:

It is obvious from [a] cursory survey of Babylonian literature that there is no correlation between the type of calendar used and the use of the formula “day and night” or its inverse. The universal preference for the formula “day and night” reflects, as Segal remarks, “the ordinary course of human behaviour. It is at dawn that man begins the active work of the day, and, for that reason, a phrase current in man’s mouth is ‘day and night.’” It is not surprising, then, that the formula “day and night” is much more commonly attested than “night and day” in the pre-exilic biblical literature, regardless of the type of calendar used. And for the same reason it continues to be more common in the post-exilic books as well. … The language of the NT points in the same direction, namely that the use of the stereotyped expression “day and night,” or its inverse, bears no relation to the way of reckoning the day.{xx}

Thus, the author of Genesis could have said “and there was day and there was night, day one,” without implying a sequential pattern that would define the first day of creation differently from the Hebrew calendar in which each 24-hour period concluded at evening. Indeed, these two words would have been especially appropriate: not only are they usually understood as a reference to a 24-hour period, but they have also just been defined as referring to the phenomena of light and darkness in verse 5a.

The presence of the phrase “vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer”
Thus far, the three contentions I have raised are independent of one another; if one should be disproved, the other two still have to be dealt with before my premise can be disregarded. This next contention, however, is not independent, but rather takes the previous three into account without being merely a combination of them. What is at stake here is why the author would include the phrase vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer at all. If he had simply written “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night—the first day,” it would strongly suggest that he intended the first day to refer to either the phenomena of light or that of light and darkness together. But instead he includes a phrase in which the three difficulties mentioned above arise. If the first day of creation was meant to be understood as a 24-hour period, the phrase vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer is completely superfluous and ambiguous.

The use of “yom echad”
In addition to the discontinuity in verse 5b, the phrase yom echad (“day one”) in verse 5c is also problematic. This corroborates the conclusion that the syntax in Gen. 1:5 is extremely unusual, and thus shouldn’t be understood superficially. There are two significant factors here: first, the definite article is absent (similarly, the other creation days are “a second day,” “a third day,” etc., except for “the sixth day”). “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted.”{xxi} If the days of creation were meant to be understood as calendar days, there would be no reason for the definite article to be absent (unless Gen. 1 is considered poetic rather than narrative). Contrast this with the use of numerical qualifiers with each creation day: this does not imply or limit us to any particular definition of yom over another. All it seems to imply is that the days are sequential. As stated earlier, probably the best way to delineate long periods of time in ancient Hebrew is to use the word yom with a numerical qualifier, exactly as Gen. 1 does.{xxii}

Second, contrary to the other creation days, this phrase employs the cardinal number (echad—one) rather than the ordinal number (rashon—first). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the ordinal number is nearly always used when enumerating periods of time. The only places where the cardinal could be used in place of the ordinal were in two specific idioms: the day of the month, or the year of a king’s reign. Since Gen. 1 is not using one of these idioms, the use of the cardinal in verse 5c is extremely unusual, and so suggests that the first day of creation should not be understood in the usual way.

[Echad] may be used in place of the ordinal [rashon] when enumerating time periods, but only in two special idioms. One of these designates the day of a month, the other the year of a reign of a king. In all other cases of periods of time (days, months or years) the ordinal number is used. Moreover, this use of the cardinal number [echad] is not exclusive to it, since any Hebrew cardinal number may be used in the same expressions, and only in those expressions. In addition, it should be noted that in every case for numbering a time period where a cardinal number is used to represent an ordinal number as well as in every case where a cardinal number is used to number a time period, the number is always explicitly definite, either by the presence of the article or by the governing noun having a pronominal suffix or because the governing noun is a proper noun.{xxiii}

So, in addition to the absence of the definite article and the use of the cardinal number, these two factors combine to form another anomaly. In the rare occasions when the cardinal number is substituted for the ordinal in reference to a period of time, the noun is always definite. But this is not the case for the phrase yom echad. The number is a cardinal, and the noun is indefinite. In fact, this exact phrase is used in only one other place in the Old Testament—in which it refers to a long period of time: Zech. 14:7-8.{xxiv}

Needless to say, this is not a new discovery. Origen (third century) and Basil (fourth century) both noted the unusual use of the cardinal instead of the ordinal number, and apparently Josephus (first century) did as well.{xxv}

The best explanation
Most calendar-day proponents freely admit that understanding yom as an undefined period of time is well within its semantic range, and is even understood as a longer period of time within the biblical creation narrative itself (Gen. 2:4).{xxvi} They maintain, however, that the context in Gen. 1 does not allow the days of creation to be understood as such. Henry Morris makes this point quite forcefully:

If the reader asks himself this question: “Suppose the writer of Genesis wished to teach his readers that all things were created and made in six literal days, then what words would he use to best convey this thought?” he would have to answer that the writer would have used the actual words in Genesis 1. If he wished to convey the idea of long geological ages, however, he could surely have done it far more clearly and effectively in other words than in those which he selected. It was clearly his intent to teach creation in six literal days.{xxvii}

As we have seen, however, this is simply false. In fact, it goes in precisely the opposite direction: if the author of Genesis was trying to communicate that the first day of creation was a 24-hour period, he could have made this point more clearly and effectively. To review: regarding the verb usage, he could have employed the customary method when a verb is repeated (vayahi … hayyah …); he could have simply used it once at the beginning of the phrase (vayahi … va-…); or he could have excluded it entirely (va-…va-…). This makes three alternatives. Regarding the nouns, he could have used either of the two pairs of terms he had just employed to define the phenomena of light and darkness (or and choshek or yom and layelah) in any order. This makes four alternatives. Or he could have made the terms he did use correspond to the Hebrew concept of a 24-hour period which ended at evening (boqer … ’ereb; ‘ereb … ’ereb). This makes two alternatives. Additionally, he could have simply written vayahi ‘ereb or va‘ereb or just excluded the phrase altogether.

I realize it’s petty to count up all the alternate ways the author could have written this phrase, but Morris’s claim, and many similar ones throughout the young-earth literature, calls for a complete response. So far we have twelve alternate ways the author could have more clearly represented the first creation day as a calendar day, or at least to the phenomena of light and darkness. But we also have to take into account that any combination of the verb alternatives with the noun alternatives would also be a more effective method (i.e. vaor vachoshek; vayahi ‘ereb va’ereb; etc.). Three verb alternatives times six noun alternatives (four alternatives with other terms, and two with ‘ereb and boqer) makes 3 × (4 + 2) = 18. Adding these to the twelve alternatives used independently, there are 30 different ways the author of Genesis could have written verse 1:5 to communicate more clearly and effectively that the first day of creation was meant to be understood as a calendar day. This is not even taking into account the unusual nature of the phrase yom echad.

In short, the fact that he includes the phrase vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer with all of the difficulties it presents, and that the first day of creation is described as yom echad, contrary to how cardinal numbers and definite articles were used in ancient Hebrew, creates a discontinuity which serves to distinguish verse 5a from 5c—in other words, which dissociates the concepts of light and darkness from the first day of creation.

Conversely, if the author was trying to communicate that the first day of creation was not a calendar day, could he have stated this more clearly and effectively? As mentioned in the previous chapter, it seems fairly obvious to me that he could have made it clearer by simply inserting a qualifying statement after verse 5 or some kind of adjective to modify yom to emphasize that since the first day is God’s day and is a part of God’s week, it was not a calendar day. Of course, this would have been redundant, since this is at least implied by the discontinuity, and it seems pretty clear from the overall context of Gen. 1 that the days of creation are God’s days and make up God’s week; but it would have made the point clearer. However, in order to accomplish this, the author would have had to augment what he had already written, which would, paradoxically, complicate the text. While the first day of creation could have been defined more simply and efficiently as a calendar day, it could only have been distinguished from a calendar day more effectively by making it less simple, that is, by stating such explicitly after having already done so implicitly.

Objections and responses
Objection: The most natural reading of Gen. 1 is that the days of creation are 24-hour periods. Construing them as long periods of time is a forced interpretation.

Response: First, this chapter has provided exegetical evidence that the days of creation are not 24-hour periods. One must deal with this evidence before it can be dismissed as a forced interpretation.

Second, the elements of the discontinuity that I’ve stated in this chapter would have been obvious to the ancient Hebrews—they knew their own language better than we ever can, after all, and so would recognize extremely unusual departures from its normal use. Moreover, at least some of the early Church fathers thought the days of creation were periods of a thousand years each, so it clearly wasn’t a forced reading for them.{xxviii} Besides, it could equally be argued that to try to understand the first day of creation as a calendar day, when calendar days are explicitly introduced later on the fourth day, is at least as forced an interpretation as understanding the days of creation as long periods of time.

Third, the most natural reading is not always the correct reading. Just because the Bible is perspicuous (clear) it doesn’t mean that we can interpret it superficially. There are plenty of places in Scripture which seem to be saying something that they’re not: for example, Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17 seem to identify the fall of Jerusalem (which occurred in AD 70) with Christ’s return. In fact, it’s largely, if not exclusively, through extra-biblical evidence (secular history) that we know that these are two distinct events. When he is approached by the rich, young ruler Jesus seems to flat-out deny that he is God (Matt. 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). While I would argue that we should assume the simplest interpretation is correct unless it presents difficulties, the calendar-day interpretation certainly presents significant difficulties.

Fourth, God frequently obscures himself so that those who don’t want to believe in him can close their eyes to the evidence (Isa. 45:15; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 10:21; Rom. 11:7-8). Pascal wrote that God has given evidence which is sufficiently clear to convince those whose hearts and minds are open, but which is sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts and minds are closed.{xxix} As every Christian knows, God’s Word is, in one sense, very simple, and in another sense, incredibly complex. That’s why the gospel can be clearly understood by anybody, but at the same time we can spend the rest of our lives plumbing its depths without ever coming close to the bottom.

Objection: When the word yom is used in conjunction with either ‘ereb, boqer, or both elsewhere in the Bible (such as Exod. 10:13; Josh 8:29; 1 Sam 9:19; 1 Kgs. 22:35; 2 Chr 18:34; Prov 7:9), it’s meaning is limited to a calendar day.

Response: Well, first of all, this is false: Zech. 14:7 has yom echad and ‘ereb, but yom echad refers to a long time period.{xxx} Moreover, as was pointed out above, when ‘ereb and boqer are used together, they are usually related to each other by means of prepositions. The point being that the specific manner in which they are used in Gen. 1:5 is very unusual, and we should allow this to inform our interpretation.

Another point to make here is that the Old Testament sometimes uses yom in conjunction with choshek (darkness), one of the terms in Gen. 1:5, in reference to an extended period of time, i.e. a day of darkness (Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15), similar to the English phrase, “it will be a dark day when…”

Objection: The term vayahi is not just used as an introductory statement, but as a summarizing statement as well. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to use at the conclusion of each creation day.

Response: But it’s used twice at the conclusion of each creation day. That’s what is so unusual. And while it is often used to summarize, it still has the general function of being an antithetical connection between what precedes it and what follows it. It is still similar to a new paragraph, regardless of whether the new paragraph is introductory or summarizing in nature. Vayahi can be translated as “and thus it came about.” If Gen. 1:5 simply said

And God called the light day and the darkness he called night.
¶And thus day one came about.

that would more in line with its common use. But Gen. 1:5 says:

And God called the light day and the darkness he called night.
¶And thus evening came about.
¶And thus morning came about. Day one.

The point being that this is a very unusual construction.

Objection: In Dan. 8:13-14, 26, the 2,300 ‘ereb boqer are referring to the usual understandings of “evening” and “morning,” whether you interpret it collectively (as 2,300 calendar days) or separately (as 2,300 evenings and mornings, and thus as 1,150 calendar days). This, then, is an example of these two terms being used in conjunction without prepositions, and referring to the normal definition of “evening” and “morning” as parts of a calendar day.

Response: But ‘ereb and boqer aren’t referring to evenings and mornings in the usual sense in this passage: they’re referring to the tamid sacrifices. They aren’t being used in conjunction to refer to calendar days idiomatically, as would be necessary in order to defend such a usage in Gen. 1:5. The context determines how they should be understood, and since the context is the evening and morning sacrifices, they should be interpreted as referring to these sacrifices, not to the parts of a calendar day. Similarly, if the context of Gen. 1 is that the days of creation are distinct from calendar days, ‘ereb and boqer don’t refer to the parts of a calendar day.

Objection: If we were meant to understand the days of creation as long periods of time, we wouldn’t have the “normal” meaning of day right there in the same verse. The context implies that the days of creation are 24-hour periods.

Response: First, if by the “normal” meaning of day we mean a calendar day, then it is not in the same verse. It’s specifically introduced several verses later on day four, and so should not be read into the text before this point. Second, the calendar day interpretation holds that yom has two different definitions in Gen. 1:5, just as much as the day-age interpretation does: daylight and a 24-hour period. Third, the context of Gen. 1 is God’s activity as opposed to human activity. Yom frequently refers to long time spans in this context. Moreover, Gen. 1 is clearly God’s workweek, and as I’ve already stated, God’s experience of time is radically different than ours.

If part of the purpose of Gen. 1 is to show the parallel between God’s workweek and humanity’s (which it is), and if yom is the best Hebrew word that could have been used to delineate long periods of time (which it is), and if some of the main events God wanted to describe were the differentiation between light and darkness, as well as between days, seasons, and years (as they were), we would expect Gen. 1 to say exactly what it says. Additionally, this objection fails to recognize how elastic the usage of yom, as well as most ancient Hebrew words, was. As has already been stated, the word yom is used twice in Zech. 14:7 to represent two different concepts: daylight and a long period of time, just like Gen. 1:5. What it comes down to is this: if the syntax, grammar, and structure of a passage is particularly unusual and out of the ordinary, it probably wasn’t intended to be understood in the usual and ordinary way.

Notes:
{i} Origen, De Principiis 4:1:16.
{ii} E. Kautzsch (1910), 327. He defines “loose and external” as “antithetical” in the preceding paragraph.
{iii} vs. 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 31.
{iv} Umberto Cassuto (1961), 27. Cassuto tries to explain the present anomaly by stating that “…the brevity of the clauses and the tendency to stress the parallelism resulted in the verbs appearing twice…” (ibid.). However, it is unclear what he means by this: if he means that the evening/morning pair are meant to parallel the light/darkness and day/night pairings found throughout Gen. 1, then it is evident that this fails since in the latter examples the term representing light comes first, and in the former the term representing darkness does (note {xix} below). Plus, such a parallelism would not have any bearing on the use of the verb. On the other hand, if he’s just referring to the fact that the phrase vayahi-‘ereb vayahi-boqer is repeated several times throughout Gen. 1, then, again, I don’t see why this should require such an unusual use of the verb: any repeated phrase would function as parallelism in this case. On the third hand (!), if he means that the author was trying to create a parallelism within the clause itself by having a repeated term, this simply strikes me as enormously implausible: parallelism is used as an aid to memorization. To augment an extremely short clause in order to create a parallelism within it would make it harder to memorize, since it would add more terms which one would have to commit to memory. Moreover, the mere use of va- (and) before each of the two terms (va’ereb vaboqer) would create just as much of a parallelism without using a verb in a manner that contradicts a “fundamental rule of Biblical narrative style.”
{v} BDB, 787-8; TWOT, 694 (1689a); GHCL, 652.
{vi} BDB, 133-4; TWOT, 125 (274c); GHCL, 137.
{vii} Ignoring for the moment the point raised earlier that day and night as calendar concepts are not defined until the fourth day of creation.
{viii} BDB, 21; TWOT, 25-6 (52); GHCL, 23-4.
{ix} BDB, 364-5; TWOT, 770 (769).
{x} John Sailhamer (1992).
{xi} See notes {v} and {vi}.
{xii} Deut. 28:67; 2 Chr. 31:3; Ps. 55:17; Isa. 17:14; Dan. 8:13-14, 26.
{xiii} BDB, 538-9; TWOT, 478-9 (1111); GHCL, 438.
{xiv} See chapter 1.
{xv} R. K. Harrison (1988), 587-8.
{xvi} G. C. Aalders (1965), 165; James A. Montgomery (1972), 342-4; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella (1978), 227; Gleason Archer (1985), 102-3; John J. Collins (1993), 336. For contrary views, see C. F. Keil (1949), 301-8; John E. Goldingay (1989), 213; and S. J. Schwantes (1978).
{xvii} See also, “Day” (1903); “Day and Night” (1971); and Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Stevens (1999), 661, 722.
{xviii} Cassuto (1961), 28, italics in original.
{xix} vs. 4, 5a, 14, 16, and 18.
{xx} Schwantes (1978), 383. His quotation is from J. B. Segal (1957), 254.
{xxi} Gleason Archer (1982), 61.
{xxii} See chapter 1.
{xxiii} Andrew E. Steinmann (2002), 580-1, italics in original. Steinmann goes on to claim that we should understand the first day of creation as a calendar day anyway because of the use of the terms “evening” and “morning.”
{xxiv} This passage is discussed in chapter 5.
{xxv} Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus 71:48; Basil, The Hexaemeron, p. 64; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, p. 32. Josephus only says that he plans to comment on the phrase yom echad, which of course suggests that there is something about it that requires commenting. He never got back to it.
{xxvi} Henry Morris (1985), 223; John C. Whitcomb Jr. (1972), 27. This verse is discussed in chapter 5.
{xxvii} Henry Morris (1981), 54. Morris doesn’t supply any reasons why defining yom as a long period of time doesn’t qualify as a literal definition.
{xxviii} See chapter 8 and the appendix.
{xxix} Blaise Pascal, Pensées, § 430.
{xxx} See chapter 5.

Chapter 3: Day Six

2008-12-12T22:06:00.014+01:00

One of the most common arguments given to defend the idea that the days of creation were not calendar days, but longer periods of time, is that the Bible seems to describe more events on the sixth day of creation than could have been accomplished by Adam during the daylight period of a calendar day. Since God created both man and woman on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26-31), the description of events which took place between the creation of Adam and Eve, as described in Gen. 2, took place within this day as well.

The creation of Adam
After God had created the animals, he created Adam and then caused the garden of Eden to grow and placed Adam in it to cultivate it. The text then states that God saw that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone, and brought the animals to him to be named. This latter segment is introduced with the term vayahi, which, as already noted, represents an antithetical connection with what precedes it.{i} There is thus a conceptual break—a space to mentally “catch your breath”—between Adam’s assignment to tend the garden and God’s statement that it wasn’t good for him to be alone. This suggests that the latter didn’t immediately follow the former. Therefore, Adam probably tended the garden for a while, and then God brought the animals to him to name.

A similar line of argument is that Adam would have been very content in the garden, since God created Eden especially for him (and it was paradise after all). But God’s statement to the effect that “It is not good for the man to be alone” and Adam’s exclamation “happa’am” (“now at length”; see below) upon seeing Eve, clearly imply that Adam was not completely content in it. Therefore, he was probably content at first, but then grew discontent because of his lack of human companionship.

Naming the animals
Gen. 2:19 states that God brought the animals and birds before Adam so he could name them. We can see several ways that the number of animals he had to name might have been limited: first, the word nephesh which describes the animals Adam named, means “soul” and can refer to human beings, life, desire, etc.{ii} When it’s used to describe animals, it may only refer to “soulish” animals, or animals with the capacities of mind, will, and emotion. If this is the case, it probably would only refer to mammals and birds.{iii} Second, Adam may have just had to name the animals in the garden of Eden, and not in the entire world. Third, in Gen. 1:30 God tells humanity that the nephesh animals eat plants, which could imply that they only eat plants, and are (thus) herbivores. Since the “humanity” which God is addressing in this passage is Adam and Eve before they sinned, the animals in question are those who live in the garden of Eden. In other words, there were no carnivorous animals in the garden. Fourth, Adam may not have had to name every single species, but only more general types.

However, there are three factors that counter these: first, the fossil record testifies to the creation of half a billion to a billion species of life before the creation of human beings. Second, God created humankind to specifically live with and rule over the animals (Gen. 1:26-28), so it seems reasonable to think that the number of different kinds of non-carnivorous mammals and birds in the garden must have been immense. Third, the narrative is clearly meant to explain how the animals received the names the original audience of Genesis knew them by, so (again) it seems reasonable that it would at least refer to the animals known to the ancient world. If God only expected Adam to name one tenth of one percent of one percent (0.001%) of the at least half a billion species that he had created (5,000 animals), and Adam had twelve hours (the daylight period of a calendar day) in which to do it, this would mean that he had to name over 400 animals per hour. This comes out to Adam having to name six to seven animals per minute, or one animal every nine to ten seconds.

Now, some might think that if the animals were all lined up and Adam just named them arbitrarily, it’s possible he could have accomplished such a feat. However, in the Bible, as well as the ancient world in general, the act of “naming” was not a simple, cursory process, but rather one which was intended to characterize the nature and essence of the object being named; as such, it required considerable thought as well as extensive knowledge of the object. “[Naming the animals] was, then, not just an occasion where labels were pinned on the animals like identification numbers. It represents—as ‘names’ were understood in ancient times—Adam’s (humankind’s) insight into the natures of the various creatures, an insight needed to make his governing possible.”{iv} Moreover, the name was meant to reflect the relationship between the object and the one doing the naming, and this presupposes the passage of a sufficient amount of time for the one to have a significant impact on the other. “Ancient thought attached much greater importance to the names than we do. Words were more than a means of communication and the use of appropriate names was anything but arbitrary. Naming an animal properly indicated that one had understood and characterized its properties, that one had established a relationship with and one’s rule over it.”{v}

Additionally, this was done so that Adam could find a suitable helper and this would make him all the more attentive to his duty—as would the fact that Adam, in his unfallen state, would take great care to fulfill any God-given task.

“Now at length”
However, Adam found no suitable helper. So God put Adam to sleep and created Eve out of his side. When Adam awoke and saw Eve, he exclaimed in 2:23 “happa’am,” or, “now, at length,”{vi} a term which “functions as a terminating expression for an emotional build-up which has been developing within a person over an extended time.”{vii} Other examples of this term can be found in Gen. 29:34-35, 30:20, 46:30, Exod. 9:27, Jdg. 15:3 and 16:18. This term is also used with the adverb ‘ak in Gen. 18:32, Exod. 10:17, Jdg. 6:39 and 16:28. In these latter cases it means “this once”{viii} which doesn’t seem to imply the passage of time as much as when happa’am stands by itself (although it should be noted that in all of these verses except Gen. 18:32 it is expressed after a considerable amount of time has passed).

As has already been stated, God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:27). It is exceedingly difficult to see how Adam could have tended the garden in paradise long enough to grow dissatisfied, named all of the animals, and grown lonely enough to exclaim “happa’am” within the daylight period of a 24-hour day.

It is, therefore, on such basic grounds as these that we must insist that Genesis 1 was not intended by either the Divine Author or by the human author (Moses) to teach that the whole work of creation took only six calendar days to complete. … Moses never intended the creative days to be understood as a mere 24 hours in length, and the information he included in chapter 2 logically precludes us from doing so. It is only by a neglect of proper hermeneutical method that this impression ever became prevalent among God’s people, during the post-biblical era. Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the 24-hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed—except by those who are bent on proving the presence of genuine contradictions in Scripture.{ix}

Objections and responses
Objection: This simply requires us to believe in a miracle which shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who believes that God created the heavens and the earth. God could certainly do all of these things in a 24-hour period if he wanted to.

Response: Of course he could, but this is irrelevant: the question is whether Adam could have done all of these things in a 24-hour period.

Objection: Adam, in his unfallen state, wasn’t limited by the confines of sin and could have performed these tasks at super-human speed.

Response: We simply have no biblical grounds for making such an assertion, and, in fact, we do have biblical grounds for denying it: Jesus was a perfect human being,{x} but he didn’t perform his tasks at superhuman speed. He was able to perform miracles, but this was because he was enabled by the Holy Spirit, not because he was perfect. Regardless, Jesus’ miracles can’t be considered parallel because while God brought the animals to Adam to be named, there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Adam’s role, the naming of the animals, was a miracle. Rather it is represented very simply and in a straightforward manner. Thus, this objection is completely ad hoc, and at face value it seems absurd.

Some well-meaning Christians have taken this a step further. They think that the biblical text obligates them to believe that the sixth day was a calendar day, and that the only way to reconcile this with Gen. 2 is to assert that Adam and Eve had, essentially, super-human powers. From this, they speculate that Adam and Eve created an advanced society before the fall, complete with space travel, which has not left any trace of its existence.{xi} I don’t mean to insult these people, and I certainly do not question their sincerity or devotion, but these speculations are so bizarre that I find it impossible to take them seriously. But if this objection were valid, they would be reasonable possibilities. Since they are clearly not reasonable possibilities, this objection is not valid.

Objection: The text does not tell us that Adam grew dissatisfied with Eden, or that he tilled the garden before God brought the animals to him to name.

Response: This is true—the text does not state this explicitly. However, the fact that the section after the one in which God places Adam in the garden begins with the term vayahi implies a conceptual break with what precedes it. Furthermore, it would be unusual if God said it is not good for the man to be alone if Adam was still satisfied with his responsibilities in the garden; it would be unusual if Adam had become dissatisfied so quickly in the paradise God created for him; and it would be unusual for God to put Adam in the garden to cultivate it, but then give him another extensive duty to perform before he had a chance to start. Thus, Adam probably tended the garden in paradise long enough to lose his initial thrill over it, although this is certainly debatable.

Objection: Adam may have only had to name a few animals.

Response: While we can certainly limit the animals he had to name to some extent, the text says that God created humanity to live with and rule over the animals (Gen. 1:26-28). This clearly implies that a significant number of the animal types created in Gen. 1 were brought before Adam on this occasion. And the fact that he said “happa’am” upon seeing Eve implies that he had named a significant enough number of animals to feel some stress about finding a helper. Besides, the point of this story is to explain to the original audience how the different kinds of animals known to them came to have their names. While this certainly limits the number of animals, it doesn’t limit it to a number that could have reasonably been named with a period of a few hours. Even Henry Morris admits that Adam must have named a few thousand animals.{xii}

Objection: The passage of time is only an incidental aspect of the word “happa’am.” If the various Hebrew terms that can refer to periods of time only do so incidentally, and are not appropriate to delineate six undefined time spans because of this, then we can’t conclude anything from the author’s use of happa’am either.

Response: “ha” is the definite article and “pa’am” is a word for time. Together they simply say “this time.” The passage of time is not incidental here, since it presupposes the passage of previous events leading up to “this time.” Events are temporal phenomena. The question of context comes in when we note that it is used after the passage of a significant number of previous events, and thus of a significant amount of time. In Adam’s case the previous events were the naming of the animals before he “finally” found a helper. So his exclamation of “happa’am” implies that he had named a significant number of animals, and consequently a significant amount of time had passed.

Notes:
{i} E. Kautzsch (1910), 327.
{ii} BDB, 659-60 (1-3); TWOT, 587-91 (1395).
{iii} Hugh Ross (1998), 49-50, 196.
{iv} Dallas Willard (1988), 49. By saying “Adam’s (humankind’s) insight…” Willard is not challenging whether Adam was a historical individual, but is pointing out that he refers to us typologically as well.
{v} Aldert Van Der Ziel (1965), 59.
{vi} BDB, 822 (3d(2)).
{vii} R. John Snow (1977), 133.
{viii} BDB, 822
{ix} Gleason Archer (1984), 329.
{x} Although, we must remember that he took on “the likeness of sinful man” (Rom. 8:3).
{xi} Emil Gaverluk and Jack Hamm (1974).
{xii}

Chapter 4: Day Seven

2008-12-12T22:05:00.018+01:00

When we get to the seventh day of creation, we discover that God rested or, more accurately, ceased (shabath).{i} This immediately raises the question “ceased doing what?” to which the obvious answer is, ceased performing the actions in which he had been engaged up to this point. And these are precisely the actions that are narrated in Gen. 1, namely the creation of new physical types of things. This doesn’t mean that God ceased from all activity, or even from the act of creating—every baby, after all, is a new creation, but it’s not a new type of thing. He just ceased from the specific activities he had been undertaking prior to this point.

Genesis 2:1-3 and Psalm 95
An interesting facet of the seventh day is that it’s not closed off with the “evening and morning” motif as the other six days are. In the ancient synagogues the Hebrews would read the account of the seventh day in Gen. 2:1-3 together with Ps. 95,{ii} which warns its readers not to rebel against God like the Exodus generation did and quotes God as saying, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” The fact that they read these passages together implies that the ancient Hebrews understood that God’s Sabbath rest (as described in Gen. 2:1-3) is the same rest that the Exodus generation failed to enter (as described in Ps. 95); and since the readers of Ps. 95 were warned that they could fail to enter this rest as well, it was an event continuing up to the present time.

Hebrews 3-4
When we get to the New Testament, we find this connection stated more explicitly in the epistle to the Hebrews (3:12-4:11). Here, the author expounds upon Ps. 95 by reiterating that the Exodus generation failed to enter into God’s rest, and that this applied to the Hebrews living at the time Ps. 95 was written as well (King David’s time). According to the author of Hebrews, this means that the rest God offered them was not simply entrance into the promised land of Canaan, because when Ps. 95 was written the Jews had been living in the promised land for many generations (4:7-8). The author further maintains that the promise to enter into God’s rest (and the potential for failing to do so) applies to us today (4:1), and that this rest began after God finished creating the universe, thus demonstrating that this rest has been going on for all of human history (4:3b), and is still continuing to the present (4:6). And just in case this isn’t clear enough, the author of Hebrews refers to this rest as the seventh day, and quotes Gen. 2:2 to emphasize the point (4:4).

John 5:17
Jesus expressed a similar idea when he was accused of violating the Sabbath by healing people. He responds by saying “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” His defense is that he can work on the Sabbath because God has been working until (heos) now; but why should God not be working until now, and why would this justify Jesus working on the Sabbath? Jesus’ argument only makes sense if God’s Sabbath rest (remember, he’s only resting from creating new types of physical things) has been continuing “to this very day,” but he is still at work. In other words, since the Father is still active on God’s Sabbath day, so Jesus can be active on man’s Sabbath day.

This conclusion can also be determined through the contemplation of the nature of God’s Sabbath rest itself: since the Hebrew word for “rest,” shabath, means to cease from some kind of activity, as long as God is experiencing his Sabbath rest, he is in a state of cessation. If his Sabbath is over, he is not in a state of cessation, by definition. But since what God is ceasing from is the activities described in Gen. 1 (namely the creation of new physical types), and since Gen. 2:1-2 says that God completed or finished these acts of creation, he is necessarily still experiencing his Sabbath rest.

Exodus 20:9-11
One possible loophole to all of this is that in the Ten Commandments, God states, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. … For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This, it is claimed, seems to identify the length of God’s workweek and Sabbath day with ours.

There are several responses that can be made to this: first, God’s workweek and Sabbath are being appealed to as an archetype for our own. But it just does not follow from the fact that God’s workweek is the model for our six days of work and one day of rest that his workweek is temporally identical to ours. The point is the six-plus-one pattern, not how long God’s days are. In fact, when we remember that Moses himself wrote that “For a thousand years in your [God’s] sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night” (Ps. 90:4), it would appear fairly obvious that God’s experience of time is radically different from ours, and this should influence how we understand God’s Sabbath day. So Exod. 20:9-11 is an argument from analogy, not an argument from identity.

[This objection] is not quite conclusive in itself, for one could respond that the readers were aware (from a careful reading of Gen. 1-2) that the days there were unspecified periods of time, and that the Sabbath commandment merely told God’s people that, just as he followed a six-plus-one pattern in creation (six periods of work followed by a period of rest), so they were to follow a six-plus-one pattern in their lives (six days of work followed by a day of rest; also six years of work followed by a Sabbath year of rest, as in Exod. 23:10-11). In fact, in the very next sentence of the Ten Commandments, “day” means “a period of time”: Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you (Exod. 20:12). Certainly here the promise is not for “long” literal days (such as twenty-five- or twenty-six-hour days!), but rather that the period of one’s life may be lengthened upon the earth.{iii}

Moreover, as was just noted, God commands humankind to honor another Sabbath rest by not tilling the ground, and this Sabbath is to be one year out of every seven (Exod. 23:10-12; Lev. 25:1-7). Again, the temporal length is not what parallels God’s week; the six-plus-one pattern is. The number seven is one of the “holy” numbers, in that it represents something divine, and appears an inordinate number of times throughout Scripture.{iv} Of course, the land’s Sabbath rest is never described as a “day,” so the parallel between it and God’s Sabbath is not as direct as that between man’s Sabbath and God’s.

Another scriptural example of an archetype can further illustrate this point: the Feast of Tabernacles (or booths). This was an eight-day long event during which the ancient Hebrews were to live in tents to commemorate the Exodus wanderings (Lev. 23:33-36, 42-43). But it would be absurd to maintain from this that, since the representation is eight days long, the archetype (the Exodus) must also have been eight days long. Obviously, the archetype and the representation are different from each other. The archetype is the “rubber stamp” and the representation is the mark or symbol made by it. The celebrations of the Feast of Booths, Sabbath years, and Sabbath days are supposed to represent events, without regard to their temporal duration.{v}

Sabbath rest vs. Sabbath day
Another possible loophole may be to make a distinction between God’s Sabbath day and his Sabbath rest. That is, maybe the seventh day of creation initiated God’s Sabbath rest, but is not identical to God’s Sabbath rest. Thus, the seventh day of creation was a 24-hour period, but God’s Sabbath rest could be an ongoing event spanning thousands of years.

My immediate response to this is that Heb. 4, in reference to God’s Sabbath rest, quotes Gen. 2:2 which refers to God’s Sabbath day.

Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
“So I declared on oath in my anger,
They shall never enter my rest.”
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”

So Scripture explicitly identifies God’s Sabbath rest with his Sabbath day, and applies it to the exodus generation, King David’s time, and the first century AD when the epistle to the Hebrews was written.

However, one could argue that Heb. 4:8 states that if Joshua had given the ancient Israelites rest (by bringing them into the land of Canaan), “God would not have spoken later about another day.” Since this later day is identified with God’s rest, and since it follows the entrance into Canaan, it can’t be referring to the seventh day of creation which preceded Canaan.

But neither of the “days” in this latter verse refers to the seventh day of creation. They refer to the “day” when the Israelites entered Canaan, and the “day” of King David. They are referring to moments in human history. There is nothing here which would contradict the notion introduced a few verses earlier that God’s Sabbath day overarches all of human history. Not to mention the fact that both of these “days” refer to periods longer than a mere 24 hours.

Typology
A third potential loophole is to note that the letter to the Hebrews uses quite a bit of typology. Roughly, this refers to the way some parts of Scripture can foreshadow other parts, or the Christian life. For example, the priesthood of Melchizedek foreshadows Christ (7:1-22); the sacrifices of the old covenant foreshadow Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross (9:11-28); etc. To apply it to the issue under discussion, the seventh day of creation foreshadows our weekly Sabbath rests, the Hebrews’ rest upon their entrance into Canaan, and the rest the believer enters upon accepting God. To clarify this, I'll call God’s Sabbath rest “a”, our weekly Sabbath rests “b”, the Hebrew’s rest upon entering Canaan “c”, and the rest the believer enters upon accepting God “d”.

The problem with this scenario is that Heb. 4 doesn’t compare the rest believers enter (d) with God’s Sabbath (a); it identifies it with God’s Sabbath, and as taking place on the seventh day of creation (4:4). These two things are one and the same: a = d. The Hebrews’ entrance into the promised land of Canaan, and the Sabbath celebrations are parallels of this rest, and so a/d foreshadows b and c. It should also be pointed out that the day-age view allows us to understand Genesis and Hebrews literally, while the calendar-day view requires us to take Hebrews metaphorically at this point.

Objections and responses
Objection: Maybe the seventh creation day is a long period, but the other six are calendar days.

Response: I would suggest that if the author wanted to communicate this, he would not have used the same terminology (yom) to describe the seventh day as he did for the prior six days. The absence of the “evening and morning” motif only differentiates the seventh day from the other six by not closing it off, but doesn’t set it up as an entirely different entity.

Objection: Gen. 2:1-3 says that God rested not that he is resting; it’s a past tense verb, and thus can’t be referring to an ongoing event.

Response: This objection betrays a somewhat simplistic understanding of the Hebrew verb system. As mentioned in chapter 1, while the Hebrew perfect mode is often translated into English as past tense, it’s much more flexible than this. Remember that prophecies of future events are often stated in perfect mode because there is no chance that they will not take place. The fact that Gen. 2:1-3 describes the seventh day in perfect mode reflects the fact that the subject (God) will unquestionably bring the action to completion (Rev. 21:1-6).

Objection: Gen. 1 is functioning as a prototype not as an archetype; that is, it’s uniqueness lies in its coming first, but in every other aspect it’s the same as humankind’s workweek.

Response: First of all, if it were a prototype, then it wouldn’t function appropriately in reference to the Sabbath year. Second, it doesn’t work to try to understand the days of creation as a prototype of the ancient Hebrews’ workweek (and thus as 24-hour periods) because they’re dissimilar: the Hebrews’ days concluded at evening (Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:32; Neh. 13:19; Ps. 55:17), whereas the days of creation conclude with the statement “and there was morning.” They are to rest for one day, whereas God’s Sabbath rest continues on for thousands of years (Heb. 4:4). The first day of creation consists of a period of darkness (Gen. 1:2), followed by a period of light (1:3-5a), followed by another period of darkness (from evening to morning, 1:5b);{vi} etc. These discrepancies may seem insignificant in one sense, but they make it very difficult to maintain that Gen. 1 is a prototype rather than an archetype. If the days of creation don’t even parallel the Hebraic concept that each 24-hour period runs from evening to evening, it’s obviously not meant to be understood as referring to the same thing.

Objection: God refers to the Sabbaths that human beings are to celebrate as being His Sabbaths (Exod. 31:13; Lev. 19:3, 30; 26:2; Ezek. 20:12-24; 22:8, 26; 23:38; 44:24; Isa. 56:4). Therefore, they cannot be considered different from the seventh day of creation, since it is also His Sabbath.

Response: But they are His Sabbaths in a different sense than the seventh creation day is His Sabbath. The former are the days which he assigns for others to rest, while the latter is the day in which God himself rests. This is evident from the context of these passages which refer to them. Most of them take place in the books of Leviticus and Ezekiel,{vii} which were written primarily to the priestly class, and are surrounded by references to His laws, which obviously refer to the laws God has assigned for human beings to honor.

Objection: When someone becomes a Christian, he or she is a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Therefore, it is false to say that God is currently refraining from creating new types of things.

Response: The claim is that God is currently refraining from creating new types of physical things. Gen. 1 is concerned with the creation of the physical universe, and so God’s rest means that he is no longer engaged in this activity. Now, of course, the believer is a physical being. But what is “new” about them is not physical. It’s spiritual.

Objection: There is no hint in Exod. 20:9-11 that God’s days are temporally different from our days.

Response: This is true, of course; what I’m claiming is that this distinction is made elsewhere in Scripture (Ps. 90:4; 95; Jn. 5:17; Heb. 4; 2 Pet. 3:8-9), and that it does not contradict Exod. 20:9-11; it simply adds an element to it that is not explicitly there. If someone were to read the Ten Commandments with the presupposition that God’s Sabbath day is a long period of time, they wouldn’t think Exod. 20:9-11 contradicts it. Scripture tells us that many of the institutes of ancient Israel, such as the law and the sanctuary, are shadows of heavenly realities (Heb. 8:5; 9:23-10:12). In fact it specifically states this about Sabbath days (Col. 2:16-17), although this context isn’t about their temporal length. Regardless, it is clear that the things of God are different from ours, and the seventh day of creation is God’s Sabbath; therefore there’s nothing particularly unusual in claiming that it may not be a 24-hour period.

Notes:
{i} BDB, 991-2; TWOT, 902-3 (2323); GHCL, 804.
{ii} William L. Lane (1991), 100; Ismar Elbogen (1931), 110, 115.
{iii} Wayne Grudem (1994), 296.
{iv} “Seven” (1998).
{v} Gleason Archer (1984), 329.
{vi} Assuming for the sake of argument that the phrase, “and there was evening and there was morning,” should be understood as referring to the onset of darkness and light respectively. I contest this in chapter 2.
{vii} The exceptions are Exod. 31:13 and Isa. 56:4. Leviticus has three occurrences of this phrase (19:3, 30; 26:2) and Ezekiel has ten (20:12-24; 22:8, 26; 23:38; 44:24).

Chapter 5: Other Significant Passages

2008-12-12T22:04:00.024+01:00

Genesis 1:11
“Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.’ And it was so.” Some day-age proponents claim that since vegetation does not usually sprout within the confines of a single calendar day, this passage implies that the third day was longer than a mere 24 hours.{i} The obvious response to this is that there wasn’t anything usual about it: it was a miracle. Dead people don’t usually rise, either.

It seems to me, though, that this argument can’t be dismissed so quickly. The focus must be on God’s relationship to the action, and God’s statement “Let the land produce vegetation,” implies that he mediated the result (the sprouting of vegetation) through the earth. In other words, there are two actions being performed here: the enabling of the land to produce vegetation, and then the land actually producing the vegetation. The first action, the enabling, is something that God did directly, whereas the subsequent growth is something that God did indirectly through the medium of the land. That is, while God’s enabling of the land to sprout vegetation was probably a supernatural act, the actual sprouting itself is a natural process relegated to the land. If so, then the second action was not supernatural, and would refer to a process which would require the passage of an amount of time in excess of a calendar day.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that vegetable life can begin to exist on its own without God. He still has to enable the land to produce vegetation in order for it to do so. The text does not specify whether this enabling is just the way God created matter “in the beginning,” or if it means that he created life supernaturally on the third day (perhaps he created the life as seeds which then sprouted according to natural processes). Of course, God is the ultimate cause of these natural processes, but he’s also only indirectly the cause of the effects produced thereby, in the same way that he was the indirect cause of the parting of the Red Sea by sending a strong wind which blew all night (Exod. 14:21). Just because God relegates the action to the elements of nature, using them to accomplish his purposes, it doesn’t mean that he didn’t cause it.

There’s still a problem with this argument, though: later on in the same chapter, God creates animal life in the exact same manner: “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” (v. 24). Obviously land is not a medium for the production of animal life in a natural sense. So while the “mediation” of an effect through the elements of nature is certainly something God does, this does not necessarily imply that the action in question is purely natural in character. Therefore, we cannot assume that the land’s production of vegetation on day three was a natural phenomenon, and so it could have been done within a calendar day.

But wait! There’s more! After God states his intentions for the vegetation on day three, the text continues by saying “And it was so. The land produced vegetation…” (v. 11-12). But after God states his intentions for the animals on day five, the text continues by saying “And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds…” (v. 24-25). Now we’re left wondering: is this a significant difference? If so, the land producing vegetation on day three may have been a natural event directed by God, while God’s making the wild animals on day five was supernatural—in which case the events of day three could not have occurred within a single calendar day. If not, “let the land produce” may just be an idiomatic way of referring to an act performed by God, and is synonymous with “God produced”—in which case the events of day three (and five) could refer to either natural or supernatural processes. If the latter is the case, the events of day three could have occurred within a single calendar day. This is somewhat perplexing, and I haven’t yet made up my mind about it (and have no intention to in the future), so I don’t know whether this argument ultimately succeeds.

A parallel argument sometimes put forth is that in Gen. 2:9 when God caused the plants of the garden of Eden to grow, this took place on day six, which was therefore not a mere calendar day. However, in Gen. 2:9 God is very clearly named as the cause of the plants’ growth in the garden—which suggests he is the direct cause of their growth, not their indirect cause. Therefore, Gen. 2:9 does not imply a process which would necessitate an amount of time in excess of a calendar day.

Genesis 1:14
“And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.’” This is a bit confusing, since we have already been told that God created the light, separated it from darkness, and called them “day” and “night” respectively, on the first day of creation (1:4-5). This difficulty has led to many divergent interpretations throughout Church history: some have concluded that this is a contradiction if it’s describing physical events, so Gen. 1 must not even be referring to the creation of the physical universe at all, but should be understood spiritually or allegorically. Others have concluded that the same event is being described on days one and four, and that therefore the days of creation should not be understood as sequential periods, but as a literary framework.

I disagree with these views, because these events, while very similar, do not seem to be identical (and thus do not contradict each other or refer to the same event). Day one deals with day (light) and night (darkness), but does not assign them their calendrical roles—that is, it is sometimes light and sometimes dark, but not as the composites of a strict 24-hour period. Day four, then, introduces the concept of the calendar day when it says that the sun, moon, and stars would be for marking days, seasons, and years.

Gen. 1:5 has already been discussed in chapter 2, but here it is necessary to reiterate its relationship to 1:14. As just stated, verse 5 states that God separated the light from the darkness and called the former “day” and the latter “night.” If there were no further qualification to this, one could understand this as referring to day and night in the sense of the constituent parts of a 24-hour period, or calendar day. But there is further qualification—in verse 14. This verse not only introduces the celestial objects, but also states that their purpose is to separate days, seasons, and years; it introduces the day as a calendar concept. The significance of this for our study is that it is difficult to claim that the first three days of creation should be understood as calendar days when calendar days aren’t even demarcated until day four.

Another difficulty is the fact that 1:14 introduces the sun et al. This will be discussed further in chapter 7, but for our present purposes I’ll just point out that it is questionable whether the ancient Hebrews could have even conceived of a “sunless” 24-hour day. That is, their conception of a 24-hour day was (in all likelihood) inextricably bound up with the role the sun played therein. In other words, a 24-hour day meant a solar day. So, again, since the sun is not introduced until the fourth day of creation, it is difficult to claim that the first three days of creation should be understood as solar days. At the very least, we would have to conclude that the first three days of creation were radically dissimilar from calendar days or solar days.

Genesis 2:4
“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day [beyom] they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”{ii} This is one of the most frequently quoted verses in defense of the day-age theory, going all the way back to the early church.{iii} There have been three ways of interpreting its placement: first, it’s been understood as a summary of the creation account in Gen. 1:1-2:3; in which case the phrase “in the day” (beyom) refers to creation days one through seven. Second, it’s been understood as an introduction to the account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden; in which case it refers to the period between the creation of “the heavens and the earth” on day one to the creation of Adam and Eve on day six. Third, the first half has been understood as a summary, and the second half as an introduction (“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day [beyom] they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…”). In this case it would imply both conclusions. So no matter how it’s interpreted, this is supposedly an example of yom referring to a longer period of time than a solar/calendar day in the direct context of creation.

However, there are two problems with inferring from this that the creation days must be understood in like manner. First, when the word yom is used with a preposition (such as beyom), as it is in Gen. 2:4, it’s often being used idiomatically to mean “when” or “then.” This doesn’t mean that it can only have this meaning when it is prefixed with a preposition—indeed, this has direct bearing on the word’s semantic range. But by itself it is insufficient. The way the term is used in an idiom may have some bearing on how it is used elsewhere, but that is all. To show that it does have such bearing in a particular case we need more exegetical evidence.

Second, there is a similar passage in Num. 7 where the twelve tribes brought offerings to the tabernacle on twelve consecutive “yom”s to dedicate it. Verse 84 summarizes this event by stating, “These were the offerings of the Israelite leaders for the dedication of the altar when [beyom] it was anointed.” Just because beyom is used in the context to refer to a longer period of time doesn’t allow us to assume the same is true for the other uses of yom in this passage.

Another aspect of this verse that is sometimes appealed to by day-age proponents is the use of the phrase “the toledot (“generations” or “genealogies”) of the heavens and the earth” to describe the seven days of creation. In reference to human generations this term implies the passage of a significant amount of time. However, toledot is being used here in the context of the heavens and earth and this might imply the passage of even more time than would mere human generations. In Scripture, human life is pictured as momentary and fleeting in comparison to the elements of nature (Job 15:7; Ps. 89:37, 47; 90:2-6; Ecc. 1:4), so the generations of the heavens and earth could entail the passage of much more time than a mere seven 24-hour periods. In response, however, it must be pointed out that, just as dor (generation) only refers to the passage of time incidentally,{iv} so does toledot. It’s more often translated as “genealogies.” Therefore, while Gen. 2:4 is certainly suggestive, I don’t believe that it can be considered definitive in regards to the length of the days of creation.

Genesis 2:17
“…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when [beyom] you eat of it you will surely die.” This verse was understood by some of the Church fathers of the first few centuries AD to mean that the days of creation were 1,000-year periods.{v} Their argument was: a) Adam ate the fruit; b) he didn’t die that calendar day, but died much later at the age of 930 (Gen. 5:5); c) but since “a thousand years in God’s sight are like a day” (Ps. 90:4) d) the day in which Adam would die upon eating the fruit refers to the 1,000-year period which contained his life; e) Adam’s life began when he was created on the sixth day of creation; f) therefore, the sixth day of creation refers to the thousand year period which contained Adam’s life.

This argument seems stronger to me than the similar one made for Gen. 2:4. As noted above, the phrase “in the day” is often an idiom in Hebrew meaning “when.” However, the context in this verse may be specifically referring back to the sixth day of creation. This is at least possible, whereas with Gen. 2:4 there is no exegetical evidence beyond the idiom itself.

However, it should also be noted that the death Adam died didn’t merely refer to his physical death, but to his spiritual death, i.e. separation from God, as well (Rom. 5:12-21); and this occurred instantaneously upon his eating the fruit. Moreover, Ps. 90:4 is a poetic statement that God’s experience of time is radically different than ours; we shouldn’t try to apply it too stringently. Therefore, I conclude that this argument is also suggestive, but cannot be considered definitive about the temporal length of the days of creation.

Psalm 90:4
“For a thousand years in your [God’s] sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” As just noted, the early Christians thought that this referred to the days of creation.{vi} Young-earth advocates challenge this by saying that the context does not make this connection.

I think the context does warrant this connection. First, both Ps. 90 and Genesis are traditionally ascribed to the same author (Moses), and thus this psalm should be included in the Mosaic corpus. Second, the days of creation are God’s days and make up God’s week. The seventh day of creation is God’s day of rest. Ps. 90:4 is a commentary on the fact that God’s experience of time is dramatically different from ours, and this should affect our understanding of the days of creation since they are God’s week, not ours.

However, I have to supplement this by pointing out (again) that this passage is poetic, and shouldn’t be read too rigidly. After all, it says that a thousand years are like a day, not that they are a day.

Hosea 6:2-3
“After two days [meyammaim]{vii} he will revive us; on the third day [yom] he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” The “us” in this passage refers to Israel, although some commentators think it may typologically refer to Jesus’ resurrection as well.{viii} As a prophecy about Jesus, yom would obviously refer to calendar days, but as a prophecy about the nation Israel, it refers either to the 70-year Babylonian exile, or to the almost 1,900 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the re-establishment of the nation Israel in 1948 (or possibly even further into the future). Therefore, this is an example of yom referring to a long period of time despite being modified by an ordinal number (third). The point being that this refutes the claim that whenever yom is modified by a number, its meaning is limited to a 24-hour period.

Zechariah 14:7-8
“It will be a unique day [yom echad], without daytime [yom] or nighttime [layelah]—a day{ix} known to the LORD. When evening [‘ereb] comes, there will be light [or]. On that day [beyom] living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, in summer and in winter.” This verse tells us that there is a day known only to God in which there will be no daylight and no night, and which will encompass the annual seasons. As such, the day in question is an extended time period.

The significance of this passage is twofold: first, it contains the phrase yom echad. This is the same phrase as Gen. 1:5, “and there was evening and there was morning, yom echad.” Although most translations don’t render this phrase as “one day” or “day one,” it is the same phrase in Hebrew. This, then, is another example of yom being used with a numerical qualifier and referring to a long time period.

Second, the word yom is used twice in close proximity, but has two different definitions: daylight and an indefinite period of time. Thus, there’s nothing unusual in claiming that Gen. 1:5 has these same two definitions as well, if the context allows. In fact, Zech. 14:7 exactly parallels Gen. 1:5, since it has the word yom referring to daylight, and the phrase yom echad referring to a long period of time. As noted in chapter 2, these are the only two instances of yom echad in the entire Old Testament. This passage also contains several of the other terms in Gen. 1:5, such as layelah (night), ‘ereb (evening), and or (light), and is thus the closest semantic parallel to Gen. 1:5 in the entire Bible.

It might be objected that the phrase beyom is used again, and so should be understood idiomatically. But in this context, it is specifically referring back to the day that had just been defined: the day without daytime or nighttime.

2 Peter 3:8-9
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.” In this passage, the apostle Peter takes the theme Moses introduced in Ps. 90 and expands upon it. Whereas Ps. 90 only goes one direction, Peter goes in both directions—not only are a thousand years like a day to God, but a day is like a thousand years to God as well. This further emphasizes the point that God’s experience of time is entirely different from our own, and we should take this into account when we look at God’s workweek and Sabbath day.

It’s important to note that in this passage Peter is not talking about the days of creation, but is addressing the concern that Christ seems to be taking a long time in returning; and this involves a factor which is irrelevant to the timing of creation: namely, that the reason he’s waiting a long time to return is because he is being patient, so that everyone has a chance to turn to him. However, it’s still applicable to the study at hand because Peter is arguing from the premise that God’s experience of time is radically different from ours to the conclusion that Christ’s return may be delayed from our perspective. But as long as the premise that God’s experience of time is not the same as ours is given, then this applies to other statements which relate to his experience of time; and the days of creation are just such statements.

Other passages
Additionally, there are various biblical passages which, although not directly relevant to the day-age theory, certainly seem to imply that the earth is ancient:

This [Pentecost] is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams” (Acts 2:16-17, cf. Joel 2:28).

In these last days he [God] has spoken to us by his Son (Heb. 1:2).

But now he [Jesus] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:26).

He [Jesus] was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake (1 Pet. 1:20).

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour (1 Jn. 2:18).

The point here is that we are now nearly 2,000 years and counting into “the last hour” and “the end of the ages.” It is difficult to claim, then, that the ages themselves consisted of only a few thousand years.

Similarly, the age of the earth (or heavens or mountains) is frequently appealed to as a metaphor for God’s eternity, or simply called “ancient.”

Your father’s [i.e. Jacob’s] blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.
Let all these rest on the head of Joseph,
on the brow of the prince among his brothers (Gen. 49:26).

Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth,
sing praise to the Lord, Selah
to him who rides the ancient skies above,
who thunders with mighty voice.
Proclaim the power of God,
whose majesty is over Israel,
whose power is in the skies (Ps. 68:32-34).

His [David’s] line will continue forever
and his throne endure before me like the sun;
it will be established forever like the moon,
the faithful witness in the sky (Ps. 89:36-37).

He [God] stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled
and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal (Hab. 3:6).

Other passages include Job 38-41; Ps. 90:2-6; Prov. 8:22-31; Ecc. 1:3-11; Mic. 6:2; Rom. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:5; etc. Some of these passages specifically contrast the fleeting nature of human life with the seeming endlessness of God’s creation (Job 15:7; Ps. 89:37, 47; Ecc. 1:4). Since these passages (and many others) were written sometime between 2,000 BC and AD 100, it is again, difficult to see how the preceding few thousand years could rightly arouse such sentiments—especially when we consider that the Bible states the first human beings lived for about 1,000 years each (Gen. 5).

Objections and responses
Objection: In Gen. 1:14, the Creator of the universe could certainly create light before creating the sun. Therefore, the fact that God didn’t create the sun until the fourth day of creation doesn’t mean that the first three days weren’t calendar days.

Response: This isn’t the argument. The argument is that the text specifically introduces the calendar day in v. 14. So regardless of what the light and darkness prior to this verse refer to, the first three days of creation shouldn’t be understood as calendar days. Moreover, as will be noted later, v. 14 isn’t necessarily saying that God created the sun on the fourth day, but that the sun appeared in the sky and was given the specific purpose of separating day from night on the fourth day.

Objection: Just because the text introduces calendar days on day four, it doesn’t mean that the three days prior to this weren’t calendar days. Time passed, and so could be demarcated into periods of specific lengths.

Response: Sure, but the phenomena of light and darkness did not function as markers of calendar days until day four. Of course, 24-hour periods occurred before this (as did 25-hour periods, 26-hour periods, etc.). But it was not until day four that God demarcated light-darkness cycles as calendar days. This objection seems to assume that the Bible makes a distinction between 24-hour periods and calendar days: the first three days of creation could be instances of the former, even though the latter were not established until day four. I simply see no evidence from the Bible or from what we know of the ancient Hebrew language and culture to justify such a distinction.

Objection: The fact that something is not mentioned until a certain point in the text doesn’t mean that it only applies to what follows. Just because calendar days aren’t mentioned until Gen. 1:14 doesn’t mean that there weren’t calendar days before this.

Response: This is certainly true as a general point, but again, this isn’t the argument. Gen. 1:14 is not merely the first time that calendar days are mentioned, it is when calendar days are established. From this it follows that, prior to the fourth day of creation, calendar days were not established, and as such, the first three days of creation could not have been calendar days.

Objection: There is no exegetical connection between Ps. 90 and Gen. 1. Therefore there is no reason to think that the days of creation were long periods of time.

Response: There is an exegetical connection between these two verses. First, they have the same author, and second they address the same concept: God’s experience of time.

Notes:
{i} Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (1997), 33.
{ii} My translation.
{iii}
{iv} See chapter 1.
{v} Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:23:2
{vi} Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:23:2
{vii} Hebrew, and other Semitic languages, have dual forms in addition to singular and plural, so yammaim means “two days” (with a prefix in this case).
{viii} C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (2006), 81.
{ix} This occurrence of the word “day” is not in the Hebrew. The NIV inserted it for clarification.

Chapter 6: Context and Geography

2008-12-12T21:56:00.025+01:00

The importance of context
One of the fundamental tenets of exegesis is to understand the context in which a statement is being made. This is no less important in the creation narrative than in any other text. For example, in Gen. 2, after God places Adam in the garden, we are told that God caused the plants to grow (2:8-9). This seems to contradict Gen. 1, which states that God created plants before human beings (1:11-12). But when we look at the context, we realize that the statements in chapter 2 are only being made with reference to the garden of Eden—that God caused the plants he had just planted in the garden to grow, not that there weren’t any plants prior to the creation of human beings.

The geographical context of Gen. 2 is made explicit in verses 8-14 when we are told there is land outside of Eden. If the description of events given in chapter 2 was meant to apply to the entire earth, it is inexplicable why the text specifically limits the context by pointing out that Eden had geographical boundaries. Similarly, since Gen. 1:27-30 states that God created human beings on the sixth day of creation, the description of the events in Gen. 2, which is a more detailed account of this same event, should also be understood as taking place on day six. If we ignore this context, we open ourselves up to misunderstanding God’s Word, and this can have disastrous results.

In fact, ignoring the context of the creation narrative has had disastrous results. Starting in the 18th century, some of the early textual critics of the Bible argued that the order of events in Gen. 1 and 2 contradict each other, and thus neither is true.{i} They used this to claim that these two chapters are independent creation traditions which an editor put together at a later date.{ii} But, of course, their whole argument is fallacious, because the description of events in Gen. 2 is concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden on the sixth day of creation, whereas the description of events in Gen. 1 is global in extent and spans all seven days. By (intentionally?) ignoring this, they initiated an interpretation which is still popular among liberal theologians today.

In order to make the sequence of events in Gen. 1 contradict the sequence in Gen. 2, these textual critics had to take a very uncritical view of the text. Their “exegetical approach can only be described as simplistic. They presumed that the order in which various creation events appeared on the Bible page represented the chronology of the text. For the most part, they ignored verb choice, verb forms, contextual cues, indicators of parenthetical comment, and virtually all other syntactic features.”{iii} Unfortunately, instead of challenging their interpretations, many Christians blindly accepted them and sought to defend them as God’s Word. Young-earth creationism, in fact, employs the same chronology of Gen. 1 as these liberal (not literal) interpreters, although they recognize that Gen. 2 is only describing the events of day six. This is reminiscent of some Christians who argued that the earth is flat because “the Bible says so,” forgetting that it was only in the 19th century that skeptics began heavily advocating such an interpretation in order to discredit the Bible.

Geography in Genesis 2
Since the context of the Gen. 2 narrative is the garden of Eden on the sixth day of creation, its descriptions should probably not be applied beyond this. Thus, when we are told in verse 2:5 that the plants hadn’t grown because it hadn’t yet rained and there wasn’t anyone to till the ground, this applies only to the garden of Eden on day six, not to the whole world and all of creation week. This probably just means that once God planted the garden, he created Adam and put him in it before it rained there.

By specifically limiting the geographical extent of the Eden narrative, the text tells us that there was something special or unique about Eden as opposed to the rest of the world. If the whole world was paradise (by being in the same essential state as Eden was) then it was meaningless for God to divide it up by making Eden a particular area rather than the whole world. Moreover, the expulsion from Eden would be unintelligible if the rest of the world was also paradise.

We are not told specifically what made Eden unique, but the text gives us some clues. For example, as stated above, Gen. 1:27-30 tells us that God created human beings on day six. Since Gen. 2 describes the same event in greater detail, the account in the second chapter also took place on day six. Conversely, since Gen. 2 limits the context of the creation of human beings to the garden of Eden, this also applies to Gen. 1:27-30. That is, the descriptions in both passages are only describing the circumstances of the garden. So if, when God tells humanity (Adam and Eve) that he gave them and the animals plants to eat (1:30), he meant that they were to eat only plants, this would only refer to the animals in Eden. That is, the animals in Eden were herbivores. This wouldn’t mean that there were no carnivorous animals in the original creation plan, only that there weren’t any in the garden. Eden, then, was a kind of sanctuary where God kept Adam and Eve safe from carnivorous animals.

Death before sin?
An objection frequently made at this point is that if there were carnivorous animals killing and eating each other before the fall of humankind, even if it was outside of Eden, it would contradict the biblical statements that sin brought death into the world. Moreover, since Christ died to rescue us from the punishment of sin, i.e. death, the claim that there was death before the fall denies Christ’s atonement.

There are two possible answers to this: first, since Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan, obviously he had already sinned and become evil, and had access to the world. The Bible states that a) Satan was a murderer and sinner “from the beginning” (John 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8), which would either mean his beginning (that is, he fell immediately upon being created) or is a reference back to Gen. 1:1 and the beginning of creation. And b) the angelic host witnessed God’s acts during creation week (Job 38:4-7), so they had obviously already been created—and this would include Satan. Thus, there’s nothing particularly unusual in the hypothesis that Satan may have poisoned the universe before God created human beings.

The second possible answer to this objection is present in the objection itself: whom did Christ die to save? Did he die to save frogs and bugs and chinchillas from death? Of course not: he died to save human beings from death. Thus, the fall of humankind initiated human death; sin results in death, and among all the forms of life on Earth, only human beings can sin (Jms. 1:15). While this refers to the physical death of human beings, it also refers to our spiritual death, that is, separation from God. The fall in the garden initiated spiritual death as well as the physical death of spiritual beings, i.e. human beings. This point is made very explicitly in Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12-21, and 1 Cor. 15:20-58. All of these passages specifically limit their context to human beings, and the latter two directly contrast the death that was initiated with the fall in Eden with the salvation which Christ offers to all people: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Rom. 5:12, 18, italics added). To apply this passage to animals obviously goes beyond what the text actually says. There’s nothing here, or in any other passages anywhere in the Bible, to suggest that the death of non-spiritual beings wasn’t present before the fall—or that it’s evil. In fact, God’s providence in the predator-prey relationship is explicitly sanctioned in the Bible (Job 38:39-40; Ps. 104:21, 27-28). Besides, how could God command the slaughter of innocent animals in the ancient Hebrew sacrificial system if it was evil? What’s evil is that human beings experience death when we were created not to.

In fact, most young-earth proponents freely acknowledge this: since Gen. 1:29-30 states that God gave human beings and animals plants to eat, plants did experience death before the fall, even in Eden. But animals supposedly did not. The problem here is that this draws the line of “death initiated by the Fall” between the death of plants and the death of animals, whereas the Bible draws this line between the death of spiritual beings (humans) and the death of non-spiritual beings. While the Bible applies the categories of life and death to animals, it does so to plants as well (Job 14:8-10; Ps. 37:2; Matt. 6:28-30). Because of the similarities between animals and humans it’s very easy when we see animals hunting, killing, and eating each other to ascribe human categories of suffering to it. But this is simply anthropomorphism. Ultimately we can’t really know how animals experience pain.{iv}

In fact, this demonstrates three great ironies of the young-earth creationist movement: first, equating animal pain and death with that of human beings would only be a valid assumption if human beings were merely animals. Those who make this argument don’t seem to realize that it presupposes the atheistic worldview in which human beings are just animals that are “more evolved” than others, the very idea they’re trying to refute.

Second, the ecosystem, which involves animals eating each other, is extremely complex (Job 38:39-39:30). If the complexity of living creatures can only be explained supernaturally as the result of an intelligent designer, and not by evolution (I am not making any judgments about this here), we would have to say the same about the ecosystem. We can't simply remove carnivorous activity from the mix and expect it to still work.

Third, some of the leaders of the young-earth movement maintain that God did not create animals to be carnivores, so the specialized properties of carnivores must have evolved after the fall of humankind from the herbivorous animals God did create. However, the biological differences between carnivores and herbivores are so significant that this would qualify as macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution. It can’t even be passed off as theistic evolution (i.e. evolution directed by God), since the Bible clearly represents God’s role in creating new types of physical things as being over after the creation of humanity (Gen. 2:1-3). In fact, since the earth is believed to be so young, it is claimed that this macro-evolution took place more quickly and efficiently than any Darwinian would ever even suggest.{v}

Thus, I contend that when God created human beings, he created the garden of Eden as a sort of “sanctuary” for them. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were forced to leave Eden, cut off from the tree of life (which would have allowed them to live forever), and go into the larger world God created, thus becoming subject to death like everything else (Gen. 3:22-24).

It also needs to be pointed out that Ps. 104 (see below) is a poetic restatement of Gen. 1, and refers to God’s providence in the predator-prey relationship within the context of creation week. Moreover, it calls this carnivorous activity “good.” It states, “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. … These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things” (Ps. 104:21, 27-28). A similar passage is in Job where God challenges Job by asking him if he can do everything God does. In 38:39-40 God says, “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket?” Since this comes in a list of things of how God provides for his creation, it means that God is the one who brings other animals to the lion for it to kill and eat as the lion waits in a place hidden from them.

A global flood in a localized context?
Since Gen. 2 limits the geographical context to Eden, we have to ask when the Bible returns to the global context it had in Gen. 1—or, more appropriately, when the possibility of a global context is re-established. At first, the banishment from the garden of Eden in chapter 3 would seem to be a prime candidate, since this clearly involves an expansion of the geographical context. But in the next chapter, Cain is further banished from the land he was dwelling in after the fall, so we have to look elsewhere.

The most likely candidate is the flood chapters. When God flooded the world, we are told that everybody died, that all the animals died, and that the waters covered “all the surface of the earth” (Gen. 8:9) as well as “all the high mountains under the entire heavens” (Gen. 7:19). This certainly seems to be describing a global event, and, as such, would imply that the objects of this judgment (humanity) had spread out and occupied the entire world. Thus, these descriptions may imply that the context of the flood chapters re-establishes the global perspective of Gen. 1.

Before I critique this interpretation, I must first point out that the geographical extent of the flood has become almost as controversial an issue as the age of the earth. This is totally unnecessary. As with the age of the earth, what a Christian believes about the geographical extent of the flood has absolutely no bearing on his spiritual life, his walk with God, or his theology. I shouldn’t even have to point this out, but this issue has become so emotionally charged that I think it is warranted.

So here are the problems I find in understanding the flood as a global phenomenon: first of all, universal terminology is frequently employed in the Bible (and all ancient literature, for that matter) to describe local events in a hyperbolic fashion. This is particularly true of the specific phrases used to describe the flood, such as “the face of all the earth,” and “under the entire heavens.” The first phrase is used to describe local events—sometimes just a small area—elsewhere in the Bible (1 Sam. 30:16; 2 Sam 18:8, both translated in the NIV as “the whole countryside”), not to mention the extreme geographical diversity the phrase “all the earth” (kol haerets) by itself encompasses.{vi} The second phrase is used with the exact same words in Hebrew (tachat kol hashamayim—”under all the heavens”) only six other times in the Old Testament, one of which (Deut. 2:25) only refers to the area the Jews were traveling in during the Exodus.{vii} This pattern even extends into the New Testament: Luke wrote that there were converted Jews in Jerusalem from every nation under the heavens (Acts 2:5; cf. Gen. 41:57), but nobody thinks this means that there were Jews from New Zealand and Tierra del Fuego in Jerusalem at that time.

Tied to this is the fact that there is a Hebrew term which always refers to the entire planet earth: tevel.{viii} But this term is never used to describe the extent of the flood. In fact, tevel is used 16 times in order to specifically qualify erets as the entire planet.{ix} The point being that there was a term available with which God could have more clearly defined the flood as a worldwide phenomenon, but which was not used.

Second, one of the only recorded commandments God gave to all people prior to the flood is to multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). The people were so evil and disobedient to God that he destroyed all of them except Noah and his family—and then told them to fill the earth (9:1). If the people were that evil and disobedient, it seems odd to suggest that they had actually been obedient to God’s command to fill the earth prior to the flood. Similarly, the reiteration to Noah to follow through with the original command implies that it hadn’t been obeyed and that humanity hadn’t filled the earth by the time that God sent the flood. And since the point of the flood was judgment on the human race, it would have accomplished its task without covering the whole earth.

Some verification of this comes from the fact that “Genesis mentions no geographical place-names beyond Greater Mesopotamia” in the pre-flood and flood chapters.{x} In fact, it’s not until Gen. 10 (the Table of Nations) when human beings finally began to disperse across the earth that other areas are mentioned.

Third, the word used to describe the animals that were killed in the flood, and had representatives taken on board the ark, is basar (root meaning: “flesh”), a term which, when it describes animals, may only refer to those animals whose “flesh” was used for some purpose; namely, hunted, domesticated, or sacrificial animals.{xi} In other words, when basar animals are clearly defined in the Old Testament, they only describe animals that fit this description, which could imply that this term is not used generically for all animal life (elsewhere, the animals on board the ark are referred to as nephesh, which, as has already been noted, may only refer to mammals and birds). The significance of this is that, if basar only refers to certain types of animal life, and only basar animals were taken on board the ark, obviously all non-basar animals would have gone extinct in a worldwide flood. The fact that such animals were and are present after the flood would thus constitute evidence that the flood was not in fact worldwide. The purpose in taking the basar animals on board the ark, then, was not to reestablish the global ecosystem, but to reestablish the local ecosystem, as well as human society, which was agrarian and depended on these animals.

Finally, one of the biggest problems with the global flood scenario is that the physical dimensions of the ark translates into its capacity and, according to young-earth proponents, it could only have carried animal pairs numbering in the tens of thousands.{xii} Moreover, we have to bear in mind that there were only eight people on board the ark to feed, care for, and clean up after the animals, and this limits their number even more, certainly placing it under ten thousand, and perhaps even under a thousand. Since there were millions of different animal species that were present on the earth immediately following the flood, it is claimed that they must have evolved, via natural processes, from the animals Noah took on the ark. This would mean that the descendents of each animal pair Noah took on the ark evolved into between 100 and 1,000 distinct species within a few hundred years. Once again, this posits a naturalistic macro-evolution much more efficient than anything evolutionary biologists have ever claimed.{xiii}

Psalm 104
As pointed out above, Ps. 104 is a creation psalm which is a poetic reiteration of the creation narrative in Gen. 1. This is demonstrated by the parallel references between these two passages:

Ps. 104:2-5/Gen. 1:1—Creation of the universe
Ps. 104:6-9/Gen. 1:6-10—Formation of dry land
Ps. 104:14-17/Gen. 1:11-13—Creation of plants (for men and animals)
Ps. 104:19-23/Gen. 1:14-19—Establishment of the heavens as calendar “markers”
Ps. 104:24-30/Gen. 1:20-25—Creation of animals

What is especially significant for our present purposes is the parallel accounts of the formation of dry land. There are three things of note here: first, in both accounts, the earth is totally covered with water; second God orders the dry land to appear; third, Ps. 104:9 concludes by stating, “You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.” Since this is a creation psalm describing the events of creation week, it necessarily follows that after the formation of dry land during creation week, God never again allowed water to cover the whole earth. In other words, the flood could not have been global.

The only way out of this is to claim that, perhaps, Ps. 104:6-9 is not referring to the establishment of dry land during creation week but to the flood itself. However, the parallels between Ps. 104 and Gen. 1 confute this: essentially, this would require that Ps. 104 parallel Gen. 1 regarding the creation of the universe, jump ahead to describe the flood, then jump back to paralleling Gen. 1, while skipping over the account of the creation of dry land out of the water (which just happens to sound exactly like what was just described). This is an extremely ad hoc explanation. Thus, this passage is a strong argument against the flood having been global.

Global context
Obviously, the geographical boundaries of Eden or the Mesopotamian valley don’t determine the context for the rest of the Bible—any given passage’s geography must be determined by its immediate and overall context, if geography has anything to do with its context at all. However, since the context had not expanded to include the entire earth by the time we reach the chapters describing the flood, we have to ask when the Bible does in fact return to the global context it had in Gen. 1. While I’m certainly open to other possibilities, I suggest the following three prospects as being the most likely candidates:

1) After Noah’s flood—As was just mentioned, God specifically tells Noah and his family to fill the earth when they get off the ark, and, if they obeyed, this may be a statement reestablishing a global context. There are two arguments in support of this: first, Gen. 9:19 states, “These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.” Second, Gen. 10 (the Table of Nations) describes how Noah’s descendants spread out after the flood. Against the first argument, 9:19 does not actually state that humanity spread out over the earth at that time—only that when they did, the people in question were descendants of Noah’s sons (there being no other men to be descended from). In response to the second argument, the spreading out described by the Table of Nations is not global in extent, although it may have been the beginning of such a movement. Therefore, this may not be the best option.

2) The time of Peleg—Gen. 10:25 tells us that there was a man who was named Peleg “because in his time the earth was divided” (Peleg means divided). If we understand this to mean that in his time the people were widely dispersed, it may imply a global context. Unfortunately, this verse is extremely ambiguous, and, unless we don’t have any better options, we should avoid reading too much into it.

3) The tower of Babel—Gen. 11:1-9 tells us that humanity (kol haerets!) settled in a plain in Shinar. This in itself tells us that they hadn’t yet spread out over the whole earth, and thus suggests that this took place prior to the spreading out described in Gen. 10. Then they started to build a huge tower, but God confounded their plans by confusing their languages and spreading them out “over the face of the whole earth” (or land). While “the face of the whole earth” is used elsewhere to describe a local area, the fact that here it’s contrasted with a local area (the plain in Shinar) implies that it’s meant to be understood globally. Moreover, the point of this story is to explain how the geographical and linguistic diversity of the human race came about. In fact, it’s very possible that the Table of Nations describes the early stages of this development. Therefore, I contend that this is probably when the Bible reestablishes the global perspective that it had in Gen. 1.

Genesis 1 and the Promised Land
John Sailhamer, a renowned scholar of Semitic languages, has recently championed what he calls “historical creationism,” a view which was held by a medieval Jewish theologian.{xiv} This view notes that the Hebrew phrase “the land” (haerets) is frequently used as a name of Israel. Since the Pentateuch is a unified narrative primarily concerned with bringing God’s people into “the land” he has promised them, the description of events in Gen. 1 (after the first verse) is merely describing God’s creation and preparation of Israel, not the whole earth. So all of the references in Gen. 1 to what God did to the land only refer to the land God had set aside for his chosen people. All of the references to what happens in the heavens refer only to the sky as seen from this land.

While Sailhamer is certainly an excellent scholar, there are several objections that can be made to this view. First of all, Gen. 2 clearly focuses our attention on a specific part of God’s acts of creation, and this focusing involves a delimitation of the geographical boundaries being described. This strongly implies that these boundaries were not a part of the description in Gen. 1 (except insofar as some of the first chapter is describing the same events as the second chapter). Second, while haerets is frequently used as a name of Israel (and is done so even today—one of Israel’s biggest newspapers is Haaretz), it is very diverse; the Pentateuch uses it to describe the land in which one is dwelling or has dwelt, whatever that land may be (Gen. 12:1; Exod. 1:7), as well as the whole earth (Gen. 18:25). So just because the Pentateuch is concerned with God bringing his people into the promised land, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the references to “the land” in Gen. 1 mean Israel; we need more exegetical evidence for this assertion.

My third objection is anthropological rather than biblical or theological. One of the fundamental needs of all human beings is to know who we are, and how we relate to the world in which we live. Throughout human history this need has been met with various “creation myths” which explain our origin and that of the world around us. Virtually every culture and society has some kind of creation myth; but these myths are always universal in scope. If Sailhamer is right, God never really addresses this need, except to say that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It seems much more likely to me that God is addressing our need to know who we are, and that Gen. 1 is also universal in scope rather than that he’s just describing the creation of a certain stretch of land.

Objections and responses
Objection: The geographical boundaries of Eden aren’t given until Gen. 2:8-14. Therefore, these limits can’t be applied to events described before this.

Response: Just because the boundaries aren’t given until Gen. 2:8-14 doesn’t mean that they don’t apply until Gen. 2:8-14. The description of the garden of Eden in Gen. 2:4-25 is a unified account, and whatever geographical boundaries are listed in this account apply to the whole. Similarly, they apply to any other descriptions of Eden anywhere in the Bible.

Objection: The conditions in Eden weren’t unique to the garden. The whole creation was created in a similar way.

Response: There was something unique about the garden, because otherwise the naming of geographical boundaries serves no purpose. The Bible doesn’t specify what this uniqueness was, but the suggestions I’ve given are reasonable, and are implied by the text. Besides, we have to acknowledge that there were conditions hostile to life somewhere in the universe before the fall of humankind if we want to avoid absurdities like that outer space could support human life before the fall in the garden.

Objection: The whole world was paradise, but when Adam and Eve fell God changed it.

Response: If this were the case, then there was no need to expel Adam and Eve from Eden. The fact that God banished them only makes sense if there was something unique about Eden versus the rest of the world.

Objection: “The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). If there was bloodshed before the fall of humankind, the pattern of bloodshed = sacrifice is controverted.

Response: The fact that all sacrifice is made via bloodshed does not mean that all bloodshed is sacrificial in nature—anymore than the fact that all dogs are mammals means that all mammals are dogs. Besides, we are told just a few verses later that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4, 11).

Objection: The Old Testament describes both animals and human beings as nephesh chayyah, i.e. living creatures. This phrase is not used to describe plants. Therefore, plants are not “alive” in the biblical sense.

Response: The Old Testament describes plants with the terms for life (chayyah) and death (mout) (Job 14:8-10; Ps. 37:2). Therefore, and obviously, plants are alive in the biblical sense and can experience death in the biblical sense. The fact that there are phrases and terms that are sometimes used to describe animals and humans but not plants does not somehow demonstrate that plants were not considered to be alive; especially in light of the more relevant fact that the terms for life and death are applied to plants in the Bible.

Objection: When God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden, he put a curse on the ground. This means that the second law of thermodynamics wasn’t in effect until then. Moreover, he created thorns and thistles at this point (Gen. 3:17-18), so he may have created the carnivorous animals then as well.

Response: This goes far beyond what the text actually says. There’s nothing here, or anywhere else in the Bible, to suggest that when Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, God changed the laws of physics, or created new forms of life. Quite the opposite: Gen. 2:1-2 clearly represents God’s acts of creating new types of physical things as unique to creation week. While this is certainly open to debate, I contend that when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, God told them that the land would be cursed, because they weren’t going to be in the paradise God created for them anymore. When he says that thorns and thistles would inhibit their efforts when they tried to plant and harvest crops, this is because they weren’t going to be in the paradise God created for them anymore.

Objection: If Eden was a sanctuary from the rest of the world, what was the original plan for humanity’s relation to the rest of the world?

Response: First, any answer to this, from either a young-earth or old-earth perspective, would be completely speculative. C. S. Lewis even wrote that it is part of Christianity’s glory that it doesn’t matter what the answer to this question is.{xv} I suspect that it would have involved slowly expanding paradise to include the whole earth and eventually the whole universe, but I could very easily be wrong; and what this would mean for possible harms to human beings, I have no idea. Nor should I: such things cannot be known unless God tells us, and he has not. It is not a weak point in any particular theological system to not have the answer to this, since none of them do.

Second, while those Christians who ask this question would never assert this, this objection seems to assume that the fall took God by surprise. He had an “original plan” that was thwarted by human beings, and now he’s just trying to get us back on the original track. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the doctrine of God’s omniscience. Since he knew what would happen, we have to say that something else was going on here; in some sense, God is arranging human history, including the fall and every subsequent sin, in such a way as to bring about some counter-balancing good that could not have been brought about otherwise.

Objection: If we extrapolate backwards, and apply the geographical boundaries of Eden to Gen. 1:27-30, there are no grounds not to extrapolate further, and apply it to all of Gen. 1.

Response: We don’t have exegetical grounds for applying these boundaries to all of Gen. 1. But we do have exegetical grounds for applying them to Gen. 1:27-30—namely, these verses are referring to the same thing as Gen. 2: the creation of Adam and Eve. 1:27-30 tells us that the temporal context is the sixth day of creation, while 2:8-14 tells us that the geographical context is the garden of Eden.

Objection: If the flood was just a local event, there would have been no point in building the ark. Noah and his family could have simply moved to higher ground.

Response: “Noah [was] a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5). God kept him there as a witness to the “ungodly people” to condemn them (Heb. 11:7) and give them every opportunity to repent. If Noah and his family had simply left, it could be claimed that the people would have repented if they had been given one last chance.

Objection: While the Bible sometimes refers to “all the land” or “under all the heavens” hyperbolically to describe local events, Gen. 7:19 uses this term twice in a single phrase to describe the extent of the floodwaters: “all [kol] the high mountains under the entire [kol] heavens were covered.” This repetition emphasizes the geographical extent of the event; thus, the flood covered the entire planet.

Response: By itself, this is certainly a possible interpretation. The problem it faces is that there was a clear and specific way to refer to the entire planet that is never used anywhere in the Old Testament to refer to the flood: tevel. Plus, it runs up against Ps. 104, which states that God never let the water cover the entire earth after he first formed dry land.

Objection: After the flood, God said, “Never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth (erets)” (Gen. 9:11). If it was just a local flood, then God lied, since there have been many local floods since the time of Noah.

Response: And how many of them destroyed the earth? Clearly, everything that was destroyed by the flood (the human race, society, culture, etc.) has not been re-destroyed since, by flood or any other means.

Objection: Ps. 104 does not parallel Gen. 1, since it refers to animals and human beings concurrently with the plants, before the former would have been created.

Response: Ps. 104 parallels Gen. 1, by describing what God created the various elements of creation for. It is pointing to God’s providence, by showing how, at each stage of creation, he provides for his creatures. So when it describes the creation of plants, it points out that God created plants for the people and animals to eat. This doesn’t imply that the people and animals were already there when he created plants, it just refers to the plants’ purpose.

Objection: Ps. 104 does not refer to the world before the fall, since it contains themes which were not present until later, such as human beings sailing ships (v. 26). Therefore, its reference to carnivorous activity is not referring to conditions before the fall.

Response: Ps. 104 is describing God’s providence for his creation, and does this by showing how each step in creation provides for other steps: precipitation and springs provide water for plants and animals (v. 10-13, 16); plants provide food for animals and people (14-15); the sun, moon, and stars provide a temporal pattern for all living things (19-23); etc. All of these elements are current phenomena arranged (roughly) according to God’s creation of them as described in Gen. 1. So Ps. 104 describes the sea that God created, the creatures that live in it, and how humanity uses it to sail from one place to another.

Now this objections asks a very good question: couldn’t the same thing be said of the lion hunting it’s prey? That, after all, is a current phenomenon, and we do not necessarily have to ascribe it to creation week. The problem with this is that, in addition to being a creation psalm, Ps. 104 is a praise psalm. That is, it’s describing the good things God has done, not the negative result of sin. The psalmist praises God for providing the lion with its food (that it kills and eats) and calls this good (v. 27-28). This echoes the many similar statements in Gen. 1, where God, after creating something, similarly calls it “good.”{xvi}

Notes:
{i} Even if their premises were true, this is still a fallacious argument.
{ii} R. K. Harrison (1999), 11-18; Josh McDowell (1981), 43-6; Hugh Ross (1998), 81-7.
{iii} Hugh Ross (1998), 82.
{iv} See C. S. Lewis’s excellent treatment of this in chapter 9 of Lewis (1962), 129-43, as well as the criticism of it by C. E. M. Joad and Lewis’s reply in Lewis and Joad (1970). Joad later became a Christian; see Joad (1952).
{v} For example, John Morris (1997).
{vi} See chapter 1.
{vii}
{viii} BDB, 385; TWOT, 359 (835h); GHCL, 855.
{ix}
{x} Ross (1998), 156.
{xi} Ross (1998), 162-3; see also BDB, 142; TWOT, 136 (291a); GHCL, 146.
{xii} John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961), 66-9.
{xiii} Ross (2004), 121-9; Greg Moore (2004). For examples, see the references in note {xi} in chapter 10.
{xiv} John Sailhamer (1996); see also Sailhamer (1992), 81-102; (1998).
{xv}
{xvi} verses 3, 9, 11, 18, 21, 25, and 31.

Chapter 7: Genesis 1 Reconsidered

2008-12-12T21:55:00.017+01:00

As I’ve defended the day-age interpretation and critiqued the calendar-day interpretation, it’s fair to ask how I make sense of Gen. 1 given that the days of creation are long periods of time. Fair but unfortunate, since I don’t really have a settled understanding yet. In this chapter, I provide a very speculative interpretation. I want to emphasize its speculative aspect; I’m very open to correction, and expect that when I go before God he will tell me I got it completely wrong.

The context of Genesis 1
Gen. 1 uses the same kind of language as the rest of the Old Testament so we should interpret it with the same grammatical and exegetical rules we use to interpret the rest of Scripture. And although it is not describing human history (until the sixth day), Gen. 1 is still specifically written to human beings. The purpose of God (and Moses) in writing the creation account was to explain how the world came to be. While this means that they were describing primordial events, it also means that they were doing so to explain the world’s current situation. The creation account was written to answer questions such as: where did the animals come from? Where did the stars come from? Where did the plants and the rain and the sun come from? Where did we come from? It is poor reasoning and poor exegesis to claim that Gen. 1 is describing the creation of a lost world that is completely divorced from our own and is therefore unavailable to scientific inquiry. The events described in Gen. 1 are meant to explain the world we experience.

However, this must be taken with the fact that Gen. 1 is only a page long. It’s obviously not intended to be exhaustive, nor even particularly detailed. It’s a very broad description of how God created and organized the universe and earth.

Another point to make is that while Gen. 1 is concerned with how things began, it also implies that things will end. “(A)s many biblical scholars have noted, the concept of a ‘beginning’ includes the idea of an ‘end.’ There is an eschatology, a view of ‘last things,’ already in the first words of the Bible.”{i} As such, the first, second, third (etc.) days seem to foreshadow the “last day” (or “the day of the Lord” or “judgment” or “wrath”) which will come when Christ returns.

In the beginning
As stated in chapter 1, the phrase “heavens and earth” in the first verse of the Bible is a merism in which two opposites are used to express totality. Thus, they refer to the entire physical universe. Some have interpreted this to mean that the first verse is a title for Gen. 1 or a summary statement referring to creation week as a whole, but this seems overwrought. This passage is simply (!) referring to the creation of the universe: matter, energy, stars, planets, the sun, etc. The rest of creation week describes what God did afterwards.

Another issue is the description of the earth as tohu wabohu (“formless and empty”). I won’t go into detail about this phrase here, except to suggest that since Gen. 1 is primarily concerned with God’s preparation of the earth to support life and his subsequent creation of life, tohu wabohu may be referring to how the early earth did not have the “form” of being life-supporting, and so was “empty” of life.

Point of view
After verse 1 the Bible specifically changes the point of view—the perspective from which events are being described—to the surface of the earth. This is demonstrated by the statements that darkness was over the surface of (or on the face of) the deep and that the Spirit of God was moving or brooding or hovering over the surface of the waters (vs. 2). This perspective is then reiterated in verse 15—”…let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” Since this context is established in the creation narrative, and is not redefined therein, the description of events in Gen. 1:2ff should be understood from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth.{ii}

This illuminates the fact that, immediately following the statement about the Holy Spirit’s activity on the surface of the earth and that the surface was shrouded in darkness, we are immediately told “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (1:3). Since this verse is clearly a response to the statement that there was darkness on the earth’s surface, it should be understood as stating that light first appeared on the earth’s surface.

Another suggestion made at this point involves the statement that God’s Spirit was “hovering” (rahap){iii} over the surface of the waters. This verb is only used one other time in the Old Testament, in Deut. 32:11, where it describes a mother eagle on her nest hovering over her young. Some have therefore taken this imagery into Gen. 1 and said that the use of this verb implies that the text is referring to the first creation of primitive life on the early earth, at exactly the stage that science has discovered.{iv}

With all due respect to those who advocate this, I think this is a huge leap with no real exegetical evidence in its favor. Taking the imagery from this term’s only other use and inserting it into Gen. 1 is simply unjustified.

Day one
Once light reached the earth’s surface, God called it “day,” and he called the darkness, or the absence of light “night.” I went into excruciating detail about this in chapter 2, so for now I’ll just reiterate two points: first, light/darkness and day/night aren’t referring to temporal periods of light and darkness, much less to calendar days (since calendar days are specifically introduced on day four), but instead simply refer to the phenomena of light or darkness being on the surface of the earth. Second, the text seems to make a distinction between these phenomena and the first day of creation.

Day two
On the second day, God made an “expanse” or “dome” which he named the sky. This expanse separated the water above it from the water below it. The common young-earth interpretation is that the water above refers to a primeval water canopy which surrounded the earth, and which collapsed to cause Noah’s flood. I discuss this more thoroughly in chapter 9, but for now I’ll just point out that I don’t think this scenario is biblically valid.

Since Gen. 1 is describing how God created the world we experience, and since the perspective of the events in Gen. 1 is the surface of the earth, I contend that the “waters above” refers to clouds and precipitation and the “waters below” refers to bodies of water, such as rivers, streams, and oceans. More broadly, the waters above probably includes the whole atmosphere and the water below probably includes the underground sources of water. This interpretation receives strong confirmation by other biblical passages describing the same event (Prov. 3:19-20; 8:27-29). Thus, on day two God established a stable water cycle.

Some might object that the text couldn’t refer to bodies of water, there being no land yet to separate one such body from another; that comes on day three. For the same reason, the text couldn’t be referring to underground sources before there was any ground. But, again, I would just argue that the waters below refers to any and all bodies of water as well as their sources. Since the earth was covered entirely by water, it seems evident that the “waters below” refers to this water. I’m not sure what else there would be for it to refer to.

It might also be objected that clouds and precipitation couldn’t refer to the waters above the sky. But it must be remembered that the term for sky (shamayim) has several different definitions even within Gen. 1 itself; from where the birds fly (1:20) to where the stars shine (1:14-18) and all points between. Since the clouds, precipitation, and atmosphere are above the level of the sky where birds fly, this could easily be referred to as water “above the sky.” On the other hand, if it is referring to waters above the level of the sky where stars shine, this obviously wouldn’t refer to a water canopy that surrounded the earth.

Day three
After forming dry land, God creates the first plants on day three. Hugh Ross has pointed out that the words used to describe these plants (zera’, ‘es, and peri; usually translated “seed,” “trees,” and “fruit” respectively) are very general, and “Thus, these terms do include the relatively primitive plant species scientists have identified as the first land vegetation.” Ross adds that, “The text does not say that all land vegetation appeared at this time, but emphasizes, rather, that God chose this time for dry land to abound with vegetation.”{v} Some day-age proponents have also thought it suggestive that it says “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation’” on day three rather than “and God made the vegetation grow” or something equivalent; that is, God may be the ultimate cause of the growth, but not the direct cause. I find this claim ambiguous.{vi}

Day four
In Gen. 1:14-17 we have the difficulty of the text seeming to describe the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on day four after light is on the surface of the earth on day one. Here I will briefly concern myself with three interpretations of this. First is the framework interpretation which maintains that days one and four are describing the same event, and therefore the days of creation are not sequential periods of time. I disagree with this interpretation because I think these events are distinct from each other.

The second interpretation is that since the Holy Spirit was on the earth’s surface (Gen. 1:2), and since the Bible sometimes associates God’s presence with light (Exod. 13:21-2; Deut. 1:32-33; Ps. 104:2; Hab. 3:3-4), the light which illuminated the earth’s surface from day one to day four was God’s shekinah glory. These considerations amount to circumstantial exegetical evidence, so this interpretation is certainly possible. The problem it faces, however, is twofold: first, there is no direct exegetical evidence that the light was God’s shekinah glory. If the text does not depict this light as something exceptional, we should be careful of affirming that it was. Second, the term for light used in Gen. 1 only refers to the light of the sun, moon, and stars elsewhere in the Bible. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of it having another source, but, together with the first point, it does seem to define this light as being normally, rather than exceptionally, generated.

This is the interpretation that is usually advocated by young-earth proponents, presumably to respond to the common objection that if the sun, moon, and stars weren’t introduced until day four, the first three days were certainly not “normal” days. This interpretation is thus seen as a refutation of this argument. But I see two problems with this: first, it doesn’t actually refute the argument. Regardless of whether the first three days were illuminated by God’s shekinah glory, they would still not be solar or calendar (or “normal”) days. Second, it presents us with a somewhat unusual situation: God created the light on the first day (vs. 2), called it “good,” but then almost immediately replaced it with another light from a different source, and then called it “good.” If the first light was “good,” why did God replace it so quickly? If the second source of light was “good,” why didn’t he just create it in the first place? In fact, this is a common objection young-earth advocates make against an old earth—namely, that it would make “God have to redirect and recharge everything at intervals.”{vii}

The third interpretation is that since “the heavens and the earth” were created in the beginning, and since this phrase always includes the sun, the light the sun produced first reached the surface of the earth on day one; but it wasn’t until day four that the sun, moon, and stars could be seen themselves. In other words, on day one the atmosphere became translucent, allowing light to pass through it (like an overcast sky). On day four the atmosphere became transparent, so the sources of this light could be seen for the first time. In fact, this interpretation seems confirmed when God tells Job that the primordial darkness was caused by cloud cover (Job 38:9).

The problem this interpretation faces is that Gen. 1:14-17 seems to be describing the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, not just their appearance in the sky. But there are three important points to take into consideration here: first, as already noted, the point of view from which this occurrence is being described is the surface of the earth; in fact, the text explicitly reaffirms this perspective in this very passage: “...let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth” (1:15). Second, in light of the point of view, when the text says “Let there be lights in the sky,” this is being described phenomenally. That is, the “sky” (shamayim) refers merely to what an observer would see if he looked up. This is why Gen. 1 can describe the sky as the place where both birds fly and stars shine. When the Bible describes the sun rising and setting or moving across the sky, it is not describing this from an objective standpoint (since the motion of the sun across the sky is caused by the earth’s motion, not the sun’s), it is describing it from a subjective standpoint. This doesn’t make it inaccurate or “non-literal”; it just takes the perspective from which a given event is being described into account. As noted in the Introduction, phenomenal language is “employed by all languages at all periods of their history,”{viii} including our own. So it is not an imposition on the biblical text to understand descriptions of physical phenomena in light of it.

Let me put this another way: if the sun, moon, and stars had already been created, but couldn’t be seen from the surface of the earth, it would be perfectly appropriate to describe the first time they could be seen with the phrase “Let there be lights in the sky.”

The third thing to note is that some of God’s acts are described in the creation narrative with the phrase “Let there be X”; for example, “Let there be light” (vs. 3) or “Let there be an expanse” (vs. 6). Gen. 1:14, however, is different.

We should be careful to note that in verse 14 God does not say, “Let there be lights … to separate …,” as if there were no lights before this command and afterward the lights were created. Rather, the Hebrew text reads, “God said, ‘Let the lights in the expanse be for separating …’” In other words, unlike the syntax of verse 6, the syntax in verse 14 assumes that the lights were already in the expanse, and in response to his command they were given a purpose, “to separate the day and night” and “to serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.” If the difference between the syntax of verse 6 (the use of [hayyah] alone) and verse 14 ([hayyah] with an infinitive) is significant, then it suggests that the author does not understand his account of the fourth day as an account of the creation of the lights but, on the contrary, he assumes that the heavenly lights have already been created “in the beginning.”{ix}

According to Sailhamer, the fact that this verse describes God’s assigning the sun, moon, and stars their calendar roles rather than their creation further resolves the apparent contradiction that they were created both “in the beginning” and on the fourth day: when God said that the lights were for separating the day from the night, he isn’t bringing them into existence, but assigning them a specific purpose. It is on the fourth day that day and night are presented as calendar concepts. Thus, God created the sun, moon, and stars in the beginning; on the first day their light first reached the earth’s surface, so that it was sometimes day (light) and sometimes night (darkness); and on the fourth day the sources of light could be seen, and thus could be used as calendar markers.

This only addresses part of the problem, though: after the description of the lights in the sky being seen and assigned a purpose, Gen. 1:16-17 states that “God made two great lights … God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” This seems to affirm that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day four. However, these statements come after God’s declaration “and it was so,” a phrase which indicates that the action had already been completed. Thus, Gen. 1:16-17 are parenthetical statements that refer back to the creation of “the heavens and the earth” in verse 1, and should be translated past perfect instead of simple past tense: “God had made two great lights … God had set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”{x} This, by the way, is the exact same pattern that happens in Gen. 2:19 which seems to say that after God had placed Adam in the garden, he created the animals—contrary to Gen. 1 which asserts that the animals were created first. But the statement that God formed the animals and birds should be translated past perfect as God “had formed” the animals and birds.{xi}

The fourth point to make here regards the verbs used in Gen. 1 for God’s activity of creating. The verb bara means “to create,” asa means “to make,” and yasar means “to form or fashion.” But none of these verbs is used to describe the introduction of the sun, moon, and stars on day four; instead, the text simply uses the verb “to be,” hayyah. Moreover, God’s creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning—which, again, would include the sun, moon, and stars—uses the verb bara.

Days five and six
Ross also points out that the term used to describe the animals which God created on days five and six is nephesh. The root meaning of this word is “soul,” and he argues that when it refers to animals, it only indicates animals which exhibit the “soulish” properties of mind, will, and emotion; and that it would be difficult to apply this to animals other than mammals and birds.{xii} Thus, on day five, God created sea mammals and birds, and on day six he created certain kinds of land mammals: behemah, or easily tamed mammals (i.e. cattle and livestock);{xiii} chayya, or wild mammals (lions and tigers and bears),{xiv} and remes, or short-legged mammals (rodents).{xv} By claiming that verses 24-25 are only referring to the creation of certain kinds of land mammals, Ross addresses another difficulty: the fossil record testifies to the creation of land mammals before the creation of sea mammals. But, according to Ross’s interpretation, 1:24-25 is only describing the creation of particular land mammals, which don’t show up in the fossil record until after sea mammals.

The reason the text would limit itself to describing the creation of “soulish” animals (according to Ross), is because these are the kinds of creatures with which human beings can form a relationship. Thus, the Genesis creation account is simply describing the creation of those aspects of creation which have the most relevance for humankind.

Another possibility
It seems just as plausible to me, however, to think that Gen. 1 is describing general events, and that nephesh refers to animals in general, not just to mammals and birds. If this is the case, the text may simply be saying that on day three God created the first land-based plant life. On day five he created the first forms of animal life in the sea (sheres) and air (‘oph), as well as larger forms of animal life in the sea (behemah and nephesh). Then he created advanced animal life on the land on day six (behemah, chayya, and remes).

Let me explicate more clearly about what this would mean for days five and six. The text says that on day five, “God said, ‘Let the water teem [sheres] with living creatures [nephesh], and let birds [‘oph] fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.’ So God created the great creatures [behemoth] of the sea and every living and moving thing [nephesh] with which the water teems [sheres], according to their kinds, and every winged bird [‘oph] according to its kind.”

The word sheres means “swarming things,” and the word usually translated birds, “‘oph,” refers to anything that flies. I’m suggesting that the term sheres may establish a context, so that it also applies to the ‘oph; in which case this passage is essentially saying “Let there be swarming things both in the water and in the air” (or literally “with wings”). Elsewhere in the Bible when sheres and ‘oph are used together, they refer to insects, that is, “swarming things with wings” (Lev. 11:20-23). If this interpretation is valid, the text is simply saying that God created swarming things in the sea (the first forms of life in the sea), swarming things in the air (the first forms of life in the air; or possibly more advanced life, such as insects), and larger forms of life in the sea (behemoth and nephesh). Then on day six, God created the first forms of life on the land (nephesh, behemah, chayya, and remes). All of this is just a suggestion.

The creation sequence
If the above is correct, Gen. 1 describes the following sequence of events:

a) Gen. 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Creation of the universe (matter, energy, earth, sun, moon, stars, etc).

b) 1:2. “…darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” The point of view shifts to the earth’s surface.

c) 1:3-5. “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Light can be seen on the earth’s surface for the first time. The light is either God’s shekinah glory, or (more likely, I think) sunlight first reaching the surface due to the transformation of earth’s atmosphere from opaqueness to translucence. Day 1.

d) 1:6-8. “God … separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.” Stable water cycle established through condensation and precipitation. Day 2.

e) 1:9-10. “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Formation of first continent(s) and ocean(s). Day 3.

f) 1:11-13. “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation.’ … And it was so.” Creation of the first plant life on land. Day 3.

g) 1:14-19. “And God said, ‘Let the lights in the expanse of the sky be for separating day from night, and let them serve as signs for marking seasons and days and years.’ … And it was so.”{xvi} Transformation of atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Celestial objects (sun, moon, stars) can actually be seen for the first time from the earth’s surface, and are assigned their calendar roles. Day 4.

h) 1:20-21. “And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures (sheres), and let winged ones (‘oph) fly above the earth.’ So God created the great creatures of the sea (behemoth) and every living and moving thing (nephesh) with which the water teems (sheres), according to their kinds, and every winged one (‘oph) according to its kind.”{xvii} Creation of the first animal life in the sea and the air. Day 5.

i) 1:24-25. “Let the land produce living creatures (nephesh) according to their kind.” Creation of the first animal life on the land. Day 6.

j) 1:26-31. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Creation of human beings. Day 6.

Whether Ross’s interpretation or mine is correct (both are consistent with Hebrew concordances and lexicons), this demonstrates that Gen. 1 can be reconciled with the findings of modern science. This provides us with a powerful tool for proving the supernatural authority of the Bible.

Verse 30
As stated in the previous chapter, when God told humanity that they and the animals would eat plants, he did so to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Therefore, he was probably only referring to the animals in the garden. When they were expelled from Eden, they entered the larger world which God had created, which included the intricate and highly ordered ecosystem—in which animals kill and eat each other. However, the Bible suggests that human beings may not have begun eating meat right away: Gen. 9:2-3 seems to be saying that it wasn’t until after the flood that God sanctioned the eating of meat to Noah and his descendants. This passage echoes Gen. 1:30 by saying “Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything,” which strongly implies that God is now (after the flood) giving them animals to eat as well. Of course, this may only mean that meat eating was thereafter allowed, not that human beings had not actually done it. After all, the people were disobedient enough for God to destroy them with the flood, so it’s not much of a stretch to think that they may have eaten meat without God’s permission.

Some, however, have questioned whether Gen. 1:30 means that they and the animals in Eden only ate plants. This is usually assumed, but the text only states that the plants were created for the animals and humanity to eat, not that the plants were all they could eat. It’s not necessarily some kind of “vegetarian mandate.” It may just be a background statement to explain why, a few verses later, an exception to the sanction to eat plants is made in the case of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-3). In fact, there are some passages in Scripture which could be seen as confirmation of this claim.

Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 warns Timothy against the demon-inspired prohibition of marriage and foods. Paul refutes this notion by appealing to the doctrine of creation. The Jewish legalists of Paul’s day were commanding abstinence from foods “which God created.” In doing so, they were violating the principle that “every creature of God is good” and to be “received with thanksgiving.” Paul’s appeal to creation to support the notion that believers are free to partake of “every creature of God” presupposes that man’s diet was not restricted in the pre-Fall situation. Note that Paul classifies dietary freedom along with marriage as a pre-Fall creation ordinance.{xvii}

Personally, I don’t find this argument convincing. I am inclined to agree that when God says to Noah and his descendants “Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything,” this is the first authorization by God for people to eat meat.

Verse 31
In verse 31, we encounter the statement that God surveyed what he had done and said that it was “very good.” This, it is claimed, contradicts the discoveries of science to the effect that the universe has been degenerating since its inception, and the ecosystem (where animals kill and eat each other) was present long before human beings arrived on the scene.

I see two ways to resolve this. First, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the angelic host (and this would include Satan) was created before or during creation week (Job 38:4-7), and Satan was a murderer and sinner “from the beginning” (John 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8)—that is, he either fell immediately upon being created, or fell when God created the universe in the beginning. This would lead to two points: 1) since Satan was already fallen, it’s possible that he “poisoned” God’s good creation. The text specifically says that God looked at everything he had done and called it very good. This may mean nothing more than that God was pleased with what he had created—not that, at the end of creation week, everything was in the same state it had been in when God created it. 2) Since Satan was created before or during creation week, and had already fallen prior to its completion, he obviously wasn’t very good at the end of it. Thus, “very good,” doesn’t mean “perfect.” It may simply mean that it was sufficient to accomplish God’s will.

Against this second point, however, is that since the description of God’s creation as “very good” is within the context of the creation narrative of Gen. 1, it is probably just referring to the events described therein, which are about the physical world. So God is calling the physical universe “very good.” The text is not referring to Satan or the spiritual world.

The second (and, to my mind, preferable) solution to this issue is to point out that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the “natural order” which involves the entropy or energy dispersal of the universe (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics) and the ecosystem is evil. Thus, it may be very good, it just wasn’t meant for those created in God’s image. In confirmation of this is the fact noted earlier, that there is biblical evidence that carnivorous activity among animals was present before the fall, and that it is considered “good” (Ps. 104:21, 27-28). Humanity was safe from predators because God created them to live in paradise, but to draw further conclusions, like that there was no animal death outside of Eden, goes beyond what the text says.

Objections and responses
Objection: The phrase “heavens and earth” is not a merism, because there are other Bible passages in which a third element is named. For example, the Ten Commandments states, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below” (Exod. 20:4). Since a merism combines two opposites to express the totality they encompass, having three elements makes it impossible for them to be referring to two opposite poles, and therefore, everything between them.

Response: First, this argument simply does not work. If I say that A + B = C, you don’t refute this by showing that A + B + D does not = C. Adding another element to the equation can very easily change the meaning. So claiming that “heavens and earth and water” isn’t a merism does nothing to counter the claim that “heavens and earth” is.

At any rate, though, I don’t see the problem here. Exod. 20:4 (and similar passages) is obviously trying to express totality exactly like a merism does: don’t make idols in the form of anything above (in the heavens) anything below (in the waters) or anything in between (on the earth). It’s not like it’s saying if we find some fourth location that doesn’t fall under one of these categories, God’s OK with us making idols in the form of its inhabitants. It’s saying “Don’t make idols. Period.” The difference is merely that, rather than naming two elements to represent above and below, it lists three to represent above, below, and the middle.

Perhaps one could argue that in the merism “heavens and earth,” the earth is functioning as the element below, while in “heavens and earth and water,” it is functioning as the in-between element; and this casts doubt on identifying the former as a merism. But again, I don’t see how. “Heavens and earth and water” is essentially an expanded merism, taking into account that water is (usually) at a lower level than land on the earth’s surface. This does nothing to counter the claim that when “heavens and earth” is used without reference to water, it’s just saying the same thing in a simpler fashion.

Objection: God did not say “Let the sun, moon, and stars appear in the sky” on the fourth day, but “Let the sun, moon, and stars be in the sky.” Thus, they were created on the fourth day.

Response: But they were “to be” in the sky. Since the context is an observer on the earth’s surface, the sky is simply referring to what an observer would see when he looked up. Thus, the text wouldn’t need to say that they merely appeared in the sky in order to make it clear that this isn’t referring to their creation. Moreover, it doesn’t just say “Let the sun, moon, and stars be in the sky,” but says “Let [them] be in the sky for marking days, seasons, and years.” Thus the text is referring to their assignment of particular purposes on the fourth day, not their creation.

Objection: Since the sun, moon, and stars weren’t created until the fourth day, they couldn’t have been included in the “heavens and earth” that were created in the beginning. Therefore, the “heavens” in verse one refers to empty space.

Response: First, the merism “heavens and earth” refers to the entire physical universe everywhere else in the Bible, not open space. If Gen. 1:1 doesn’t refer to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars then there is simply nothing for it to refer to. “Empty space” is largely a philosophical and modern scientific concept, and I doubt the ancient Hebrews even had such a notion. Second, as already noted, the text seems to say that the sun, moon, and stars were assigned a purpose on the fourth day, not that they were created.

Objection: If the days of creation were long periods of time, the plants, created on the third day, couldn’t have survived, since the sun, moon, and stars weren’t created until the fourth day.

Response: First, the text clearly tells us that there was light on the surface of the earth before the plants (1:5), and this would have been sufficient for photosynthesis, regardless of what the source of light was. Second, the plants couldn’t have survived for 24 seconds without sufficient light and heat, much less 24 hours. This is just as much a problem for the calendar-day interpretation as it is for the day-age interpretation. Finally, like the others, this objection assumes that the account of the fourth day is describing the creation of the celestial objects rather than their assignation of a purpose.

Objection: The plants were created on the third day of creation, but the insects weren’t created until day six (remes—creeping things). Since many plants require insects in order to pollinate, if the days of creation aren’t 24-hour periods, the plants wouldn’t have survived.

Response: There are two misunderstandings here: the text doesn’t necessarily mean that God created every plant species on the fourth day, but only that he began to create plants then. Moreover, the terms which describe the plants that were created on the fourth day can apply to the early, primitive plants which didn’t need pollination by insects in order to propagate.

Second, if the “swarming things with wings” which God created on the fifth day refers to insects, they were present earlier than we think. On the other hand, Ross maintains that the creation of insects is simply not referred to in Gen. 1, so we can’t tell when they were created. Either way, this objection doesn’t pose a problem.

Objection: Gen. 1 describes the creation of all animals. To say it only describes the creation of certain animals is a forced interpretation.

Response: Gen. 1 is a summary of creation week. If every detail of God’s creation activities were reported, it would be millions of pages long. Since it’s only one page long, we should realize that it isn’t meant to be exhaustive in scope. Besides, there’s nothing forced in thinking the text is only describing those aspects of creation that have the most relevance for human beings. It was written for human beings.

Objection: Gen. 1:29-30 states that God only gave plants for animals to consume; to limit this to the garden of Eden is a forced interpretation. Therefore, carnivorous activity was not a part of the original creation and was instigated by the fall of mankind.

Response: It would be very difficult to deny that this passage is being spoken to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they had sinned. Thus, this statement is only referring to the animals in the garden, the “sanctuary” which God had created for humanity. This conclusion is derived from the text, and therefore is not forced.

Notes:
{i} John Sailhamer (1996), 43.
{ii} Gleason Archer (1982), 58-63; Hugh Ross (1998), 21-3; (2004), 231-4.
{iii} TWOT, 2:843.
{iv} Peter W. Stoner (1958), 39-40; Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (2004).
{v} Hugh Ross (1998), 39.
{vi} See chapter 5.
{vii} Henry Morris (1980).
{viii} Archer (1982), 93.
{ix} Sailhamer (1992), 93. I’m unaware, however, of any translation which follows this pattern.
{x} Archer (1982), 61-2.
{xi} Not to mention the fact that the context of Gen. 2 is the garden of Eden rather than the whole earth. See the previous chapter.
{xii} Hugh Ross (1998), 49-50.
{xiii}
{xiv} Oh my!
{xv} While remes simply means “creeping things,” Ross maintains that in this context they have already been defined as nephesh, and thus should be understood as “soulish creeping things,” i.e., rodents.
{xvi} Sailhamer’s translation, based on the NIV, which reads: “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night…”
{xvii} Meredith Kline and Lee Irons (2001b), 287.

Chapter 8: The History of the Day-Age Interpretation

2008-12-12T21:54:00.017+01:00

It is often thought that interpreting the days of creation as anything other than seven sequential 24-hour periods is a purely contemporary phenomenon brought on by a desire to harmonize Scripture with the findings of modern science. Old-earth proponents maintain, however, that the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation of Gen. 1 doesn’t support this assertion. In this chapter, I’ll deal with the testimony of the Church throughout history on this subject.{i}

The debate over the Church fathers {ii}
When The Fundamentals were written at the beginning of the 20th century, they argued for the day-age interpretation and an ancient earth and universe. However, they didn’t merely appeal to the Bible, but to Church history as well: “Do not think that this larger reading of the days is a new speculation. You find Augustine in early times declaring that it is hard or altogether impossible to say of what fashion these days are, and Thomas Aquinas, in the middle ages, leaves the matter an open question.”{iii} Hugh Ross has documented in Creation and Time and A Matter of Days plenty of Christians throughout Church history who argued that the days of creation were long periods of time.{iv} Christian philosopher Kenneth Richard Samples, a colleague of Ross, wrote, “From the time of the Church fathers, through the Reformation, and up to the present, various views have prevailed, some more broadly represented than others, but none was ever considered the definitive, or the only, orthodox biblical position.”{v} Similarly, the 19th century theologian William G. T. Shedd wrote:

The very common assertion, that the church has altered its exegesis, under the compulsion of modern geology, is one of the errors of ignorance. The doctrine of an immense time, prior to the six creative days, was a common view among the fathers and schoolmen. … Respecting the length of the six creative days, speaking generally, for there was some difference of views, the patristic and mediaeval exegesis makes them to be long periods, not days of twenty-four hours. The latter interpretation has prevailed only in the modern church.{vi}

In response to this, young-earth proponents state that these claims are simply false: “One is caused to question whether Dr. Ross has actually read any of the writings he quotes. Most of the ‘Church Fathers’ he claims as believing in figurative ‘days’ actually believed just the opposite. This is even evident within the same context of the quotes Ross reported. Creation and Time misinterprets no fewer than 9 of the 14 men listed.”{vii} “This claim [that there was no exegetical consensus on the days of Genesis] is wrong. There was only one view following the repudiation of Augustine’s view, and seldom (if ever) before the nineteenth century was the day-age or the framework view advocated.”{viii}

As far as I can understand them, there are plenty of statements in the Church fathers which, at the very least, strongly imply that some of them understood the days of creation as calendar days. Conversely, in defense of the view expressed by Shedd, Ross, Samples, and The Fundamentals, it must be recognized that there are also plenty of statements in the Church fathers which claim or imply that the days of creation were millennia.{ix} For example, some of the fathers argued that God’s statement to Adam that he would die “in the day” that he ate the forbidden fruit referred to the sixth day of creation. Since the time between Adam’s creation and his death was slightly less than a thousand years (Gen. 5:5), and since a thousand years is as a day to the Lord (Ps. 90:4), the sixth day (when Adam was created) was a thousand years long.{x} Others, in similar language as Heb. 4, identified the present or (more often) the future age with the seventh day of creation, sometimes claiming that it was instituted with Christ’s first advent—a view which led to the belief that Jesus would return at the end of the seventh day in AD 1000.{xi}

Yes, but…
There’s more to the story, though. Prior to the Reformation, most biblical commentators believed in multiple interpretations of Scripture. That is, any given passage had several different meanings. And it seems apparent that the Church fathers understood the day-age interpretation as a secondary one; that is, the days of creation referred to long spans of time in addition to their primary meaning.

This is evident from the fact that they thought each day was an age of human history. For example, they often understood the sixth day as referring to the 1,000 years prior to Christ. The problem comes in when we remember that human beings weren’t created until the sixth day. So were they suggesting that Adam and Eve were created sometime within the millennium before Christ? Were they suggesting that all of human history—from Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Nehemiah, etc.—could be squeezed into the 1,000 years leading up to Jesus’ birth? Of course not. Obviously, understanding the sixth day as a millennium is a secondary interpretation.

Yes, but…
So what can we conclude from this? Not as much as some might hope. For one thing, the recognition that it was a secondary interpretation does not negate the fact that it was still a common interpretation. Regardless of whether it was secondary, the early Church fathers still understood the days of creation to be reasonably interpreted as long periods of time. They gave exegetical arguments for it. Perhaps those arguments were not sound, but it can’t be claimed that the day-age interpretation is just a recent position.

For another thing, young-earth proponents seem to assume that since the day-age view was a secondary interpretation, the primary interpretation was the calendar-day view. But this doesn’t seem clear. There are few explicit statements to this effect, and we know that some of the fathers thought that all of the events of creation week took place instantaneously. Augustine affirmed both that creation took no time, and that the days of creation were 1,000-year periods.{xii} Others argued that some aspects of the syntax in Gen. 1 were unusual, and shouldn’t be understood superficially.{xiii} Origen went so far as to repudiate those who took the creation stories in Gen. 1-3 as historical.{xiv} The point being that there was controversy in the early Church over how the creation narrative should be interpreted, and this controversy extended to the nature of the creation days. If a Christian writer of the time thought that the days of creation were calendar days, he would have had to make that clear to his readers since some of the most prolific Christian authors denied it. In the absence of such clarifications, there is simply no reason to assume that the calendar-day interpretation was universally presumed as the primary interpretation. How do we know that the “instantaneous” view wasn’t the primary interpretation?

And yet…
I have been discussing what the Church fathers wrote about the days of creation, rather than what they wrote about the age of the universe. But their understanding of the latter can be easily determined by reflection upon the former: if they thought that the six creation days were each 1,000 year periods, or that all of the events in Gen. 1 took place instantaneously in no time, how old would they have concluded the universe is? Well, several thousand years. They state this pretty explicitly.{xv} Because of this, many young-earth proponents think that their views are much closer to those of the early Church, and with some justification.

However, it must be borne in mind that the reason contemporary young-earth proponents make this claim is because they insist that the days of creation can only be validly interpreted as referring to calendar days. In other words, they have different reasons for believing the earth to be several thousand years old than Christians have historically.

The significance of this is twofold: first, an argument is only as good as its premises. Since modern young-earth proponents disagree with the traditional premises that the creation days are millennia (the day-age view) or that they’re metaphorical (the instantaneous creation view), their “agreement” that the universe is several thousand years old becomes irrelevant.

Second, modern day-age proponents are closer to the beliefs of the early Christians, since they agree with one of their premises, that the days of creation refer to long periods of time. They disagree that they were long periods of a specific length (1,000 years), and that this constitutes a secondary, rather than the primary, interpretation. But their agreement is more significant than the superficial one between modern young-earth proponents and the Church fathers.

The later Church
There wasn’t much alteration of these themes during the medieval era. Augustine’s view of instantaneous creation was commonly accepted. Anselm, for example, wrote that “the whole creation took place at once, and those days in which Moses appears to describe a successive creation are not to be understood like such days as ours.”{xvi}

With the Reformation, Protestants rejected multiple interpretations of the Bible and, while respecting the views of Christians throughout history, did not let traditional interpretations determine their understanding of the biblical text. Many accepted the calendar-day interpretation. As noted in the Introduction, Martin Luther himself accepted it, but with the reservation that the creation account is extremely obscure.{xvii}

Protestants formed creeds to summarize their positions regarding the most important aspects of Christianity. Very few of them addressed the nature of the creation days or the age of the universe. The Belgic Confession merely states that God created everything “when it seemed good to him,”{xviii} which suggests its writers were being deliberately agnostic about the universe’s age.

The Protestant confession that is particularly relevant to our study is the Westminster Confession. Some of the authors expressed elsewhere a belief in the calendar-day interpretation,{xix} and the Confession itself states that God created everything “in the space of six days.”{xx} From this it is claimed that the Westminster Confession affirms the calendar-day interpretation.

I think this is reading too much into the Confession. I agree, after all, that God created everything in the space of six days. I disagree, however, that he created everything in the space of six calendar days. The Westminster Confession does not say that the days of creation should be understood as 24-hour periods; and, again, given the diversity of views on this issue, if they were intending to do so, they would have had to make this much more explicit. The faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, who subscribes to the Westminster Confession, commissioned a report on this issue, and concluded that the phrase “in the space of six days” was not meant to define the days of creation as calendar days. Rather, it was intended to counter (but not condemn) the Augustinian view that creation took place instantaneously and took no time. They also note that this issue “never seems to have been regarded as a test of orthodoxy in the reformed churches.”

… we recognize that the exegetical question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms. To insist that it must comes dangerously close to demanding from God revelation which he has not been pleased to bestow upon us, and responding to a threat to the biblical world view with weapons that are not crafted from the words which have proceeded out of the mouth of God.{xxi}

Another example from about the same time is Isaac Newton. In his correspondence with Thomas Burnet and others, Newton, a Catholic, expressed his belief that the days of creation should be understood as individual rotations of the earth on its axis—but that the earth rotated much slower at this time, and that the days were therefore long periods of indefinite length. He also expressed his belief that the Bible teaches that the earth is ancient.{xxii} Burnet, the chaplain for King William III, responded by arguing for an ancient earth in his Archaeologie Philosophicae, published in 1692.{xxiii} This was before there was any scientific evidence that the earth and universe are ancient. All of this demonstrates that the day-age interpretation is not a purely contemporary position.

And now for something completely different
In this chapter I’ve discussed what Christians throughout history have thought about the days of creation. Perhaps the most important thing about their beliefs, however, is that the length of the days of creation was not a significant issue, and they were tolerant of different interpretations. This point is made best by Gleason Archer and Hugh Ross:

Prior to 1650 exegetes gave little attention to the length of the creation days. Of the approximately two thousand extant pages of creation-day commentary by early Church fathers, only a total of about two pages address the duration of the creation days. Anyone who reads the original source literature will notice the difference in tone between the early Church fathers and modern 24-hour advocates. The older writings are devoid of passionate certainty and dogmatism about the length of the creation days. Rather, they evidence a tentativeness and exhibit tolerance on this point.{xxiv}

Since this issue has, unfortunately, caused division in the Church, I submit that we should seek to imitate the attitudes and humility of those who have gone before us in the Way of Christ.

Objections and responses
Objection: None of the Church fathers advocating anything even remotely like a billions-of-years old universe. Lactantius even condemned the secular belief that the universe is ages old, since we know from Scripture that it’s only a few thousand years old. Therefore, the fathers can’t be said to have agreed with old-earth creationism and the day-age interpretation.

Response: Many Church fathers believed that the days of creation were 1,000 year periods and/or metaphorical. Therefore, the idea that the days of creation refer to something other than calendar days was an accepted view in the early church. As such, the day-age interpretation is neither new nor unusual, even if the specific claim that the universe is 13.5 billion years old may be. The difference between the patristic day-age interpretation and the contemporary one is merely that a) the former position held that the creation days were extended temporal periods of a specific length, while the latter holds that they are extended temporal periods of unspecific lengths; and b) the former held the day-age view to be a secondary interpretation, while the latter holds it to be the primary interpretation.

As for Lactantius, he argued that we know that the universe is only several thousand years old because Scripture teaches that the days of creation were long periods of 1,000 years each.{xxv} He had a different reason for thinking that the universe is young than young-earth proponents have today. Moreover, as noted in the introduction, Lactantius was one of only five individuals in Church history who argued that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, and his theological views were eventually condemned as heretical after his death.

We have to be careful not to read our own presuppositions into the Church fathers, but let them speak for themselves. This may be problematic, since the issues they struggled with are sometimes very different from those we struggle with. The length of the creation days was not a significant point of contention for them, because the challenges they addressed were regarding the fact of creation rather than its timing. The secular view was that the universe was infinitely old and had always existed, so they responded that it was created a finite time ago.

Objection: Protestants believe in only one interpretation of any given biblical passage. Therefore, whatever additional interpretations others have made are irrelevant.

Response: That may be what some Christians believe today, but that doesn’t allow us to ignore or remove what the Church fathers believed.

Objection: The additional interpretations of Scripture made throughout Church history were largely subjective and arbitrary. Therefore, they don’t have the same weight as the primary interpretation.

Response: This is partially true: the ancient and medieval exegetes thought that the various interpretations of Scripture fell into particular categories, and so they read these categories into the Bible, even where they didn’t fit. This often led to interpretations which were highly subjective and forced. But this is not the case for the days of creation. They gave exegetical arguments for why they should be understood as long periods of time, some of which have been defended in this book, and these arguments were widely accepted.

Notes:
{i} For the diversity of interpretations of the creation days in Jewish history, see Nathan Aviezer (1990).
{ii} An easily accessible analysis of this issue is “The Days of Genesis 1” (chapter 3) in Robert I. Bradshaw (1999). Bradshaw began his study of this subject in order to defend the calendar-day interpretation as the standard view throughout Church history, but ended up concluding that there were several views.
{iii} James Orr (1917a), 197, 284-5; see also, Orr (1917b).
{iv} Hugh Ross (2004), 41-9.
{v} Kenneth Richard Samples (2001).
{vi} William G. T. Shedd (2003), 474-6.
{vii} Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor (1994), 94. As with Henry Morris (see note {xxvii} of chapter 2), these authors supply no reason why understanding the days of creation as long time spans is figurative rather than literal; and I don’t understand why they felt it necessary to put the phrase “Church Fathers” in scare quotes. Moreover, it’s difficult to accept their condemnation of Ross’s alleged misrepresentations when they gave their book the same title as his, and had Ross’s name in larger font on the cover than their own—all without permission (Ross [2004], 262, n. 7). I could certainly be wrong, but it looks like they were trying to trick people into thinking they were buying his book instead of theirs.
{viii} J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall (2001b), 111.
{ix} See the appendix.
{x} Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:23:2.
{xi} Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:28:3; 30:4; 33:2; Victorinius of Pettau, On the Creation of the World; Origen, Against Celsus 6:61. See also Robert G. Clouse, et al. (1999).
{xii}
{xiii} Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus 71:48; Basil, The Hexaemeron 64.
{xiv} Origen, De Principiis 4:1:16.
{xv}
{xvi} Anselm, Cur Deus Homo 1:18. It should be noted that Anselm begins this phrase with an “if,” but he never suggests that it is incorrect.
{xvii} Martin Luther (1858), 23.
{xviii} Belgic Confession, article 12.
{xix} David Hall has argued that 15 of the 151 members explicitly endorsed the calendar-day interpretation, and another 10 did so implicitly (Hall [2001]). William Barker has argued that Hall has overstated his case and that the total number of the 151 people on the committee who affirmed the calendar-day interpretation is actually five (Barker, [2000]).
{xx} Westminster Confession, 4.
{xxi} “Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation: A Brief Statement.”
{xxii} Newton to Burnet, January 1680/1, letter 247, in H. W. Turnbull (1960), 329-35.
{xxiii} Thomas Burnet (1692), 32-51.
{xxiv} Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer (2001a).
{xxv}

Chapter 9: The Young-Earth Scenario

2008-12-12T21:53:00.029+01:00

The primeval water canopy
In order to counter scientific evidence that the earth and universe are much older than a few thousand years, young-earth advocates propose a model which attempts to provide an alternate explanation of this evidence. This model begins by arguing that the separation of the waters below from the waters above in Gen. 1 does not refer to the sources of water in our experience (namely, bodies of water and precipitation), but rather to a primeval water canopy that surrounded the earth—although it is debated which state (gas, liquid, or solid) the water in the canopy was made up of. This idea originates with the “visions” of Ellen White upon which Seventh-Day Adventism was founded and based much of its theology. The modern young-earth creationist model is virtually identical to—and historically, derived from—White’s visions.{i}

According to White and those who followed in her footsteps, the canopy created a greenhouse effect, which made the entire planet a kind of tropical paradise where it never rained. It also prevented some cosmic rays from reaching the earth, which allowed people to live to the greater ages the Bible describes (Gen. 5). The flood was caused by the collapse of this canopy, and during this occurrence, God altered the earth’s features from being largely smooth and flat to having greater extremes of elevation and depression. Thus, the fossil record and the geological column were laid down during the flood, and not over the supposed long time periods maintained by modern science. Since the flood was the first time it rained, God’s promise to never kill all the inhabitants of the earth by flood again was symbolized by the rainbow, which had never been seen before.

White experienced her visions in the 1840s. A few decades later, in 1874, an old-earth creationist named Isaac Vail proposed a similar canopy model.{ii} Vail based his claims more on Babylonian mythology than the Bible, and argued that this canopy formed millions or billions of years ago as the earth changed from a molten mass to its more or less current state. However, Vail’s model had little influence on contemporary young-earth creationism; again, the latter is based on and derived from Ellen White’s visions.

I must first commend the canopy model for trying to encompass and explain both the creation account and the flood account. The goal of systematic theology, after all, is to provide models which explain diverse biblical data. While it is preferable to employ a model which is directly derived from the Bible, this is not always possible—God didn’t write a systematic theology. It may be the case that sometimes the biblical data is best explained by a model that isn’t itself found in it.

Having said this, I must say further that this model does not explain the biblical data very well, either from an exegetical, a theological, or a scientific standpoint. As for how it explains the scientific data, I would just point out that virtually no scientist has found this scenario to have any validity whatsoever, unless he was already committed to a young-earth interpretation of the Bible. It’s also significant to note that this interpretation is just as much an attempt to deal with modern scientific discoveries as the day-age interpretation.

Some problems with the canopy theory
First, if the phrase “the waters above” does not refer to something common in our experience (like precipitation, water that falls from above), then this phrase is completely obscure, and could be interpreted to mean just about anything. For example, one could claim that the waters above refer to water above the level of the moon and sun. Mormons could then claim that it refers to the planet Kolob near God’s dwelling place.{iii} As implausible as this scenario is (and no one has actually suggested it, I’m just making it up), it is no less plausible than to claim that the waters above refers to an ancient canopy of water that used to surround the earth but no longer does. Gen. 1 does not define what the “waters above” is, so if it is not meant to refer to an aspect of our common experience (just as the “waters below” refers to rivers, lakes, oceans, and their underground sources), it could be forced to mean nearly anything.

Second, there is biblical evidence against the canopy theory. The text says that when the flood abated, the waters returned (shub) to where they had been prior to the flood (Gen. 8:3). Therefore, if they had originated in a water canopy, they would have returned to form another canopy after the flood. Since the water did not reform into a water canopy that surrounded the earth, the floodwaters did not originate in such a canopy.

Third, there are parallel Bible passages that clearly show that “the waters above” in Gen. 1 refers to clouds and precipitation. Prov. 3:19-20 states that “By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew.” Referring to God’s laying of the earth’s foundations and setting the heavens in place obviously hearkens back to the creation account in Gen. 1. “The deeps were divided” sounds exactly like the separation of the waters below from the waters above (“the deeps” and “the deep” are common references to oceans and water in the Bible, even in Gen. 1—“darkness was over the surface of the deep”), and “the clouds let drop the dew” obviously refers to precipitation.

Similarly, Prov. 8:27-29 states “I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep.” Again, “when he set the heavens in place” clearly refers back to the creation account in Gen. 1, and “clouds above” and “fountains of the deep” immediately brings to mind the concept of the waters above and the waters below, thus demonstrating that the waters above refer to clouds.

Fourth, the Bible represents paradise as a particular location on earth (the garden of Eden), not the whole planet. So not only is there no positive biblical evidence that the entire planet was a “tropical paradise,” the biblical evidence seems to suggest, to the contrary, that paradise was confined to a localized area.

Fifth, the canopy theory doesn’t have the explanatory power to account for other biblical phenomena that is claimed. A water canopy surrounding the earth would not have prevented interstellar rays from reaching the surface, and it is these rays which are partially responsible for causing mutations, and as such, play a role in limiting human life spans.{iv} So, despite claims to the contrary, this model does not provide an explanation for how the earliest humans lived to the great ages that the Bible ascribes to them.

Rain before the flood
The claim that it didn’t rain on the early earth (and therefore that the “waters above” couldn’t have referred to clouds and precipitation) is based on two passages: the first is Gen. 2:5, which states that “the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [erets] and there was no man to work the ground.” However, as pointed out earlier, this verse is a part of the story of God’s creation of Adam and Eve, and so does not refer to the entire planet and all of earth history, but to the garden of Eden on the sixth day of creation. The term erets means “land,” and often refers to local areas like this.

The other passage offered is Gen. 9:13-17 which states that God set the rainbow in the sky to represent his promise to never destroy the earth’s population by flood again. This implies that there had been no rainbows prior to this, and hence, it had never rained. However, whenever God makes a covenant with people in the Bible, he takes something they’re already familiar with and says, in effect, “From now on this represents my covenant with you” (for example, water for baptism, circumcision for the Abrahamic covenant, animal blood for the old covenant, bread and wine for the new covenant). Gen. 9:13-17 shouldn’t be understood as saying that there had never been any rainbows, but that they were to represent God’s covenant from that point on. Therefore, I conclude there is no biblical reason to suggest that the flood was the first time it rained on the earth, and that the passages from Proverbs mentioned above show that there are biblical reasons to think it had rained before.

The rising of the land
The claim that the earth was smoother before the flood is not based on the flood narrative itself, but on some translations of Ps. 104:6-8 which, in describing a separation of land from water, refer to the upheaval of the mountains rather than the recession of the waters.{v} There are several responses to this:

1) Ps. 104 is a poetic reiteration of Gen. 1. Thus, verses 6-8 are not describing the events of the flood, but the events of creation week when God first formed dry land.{vi}

2) Gen. 8:1-3 specifically states that during the flood it was the waters that receded, not the land that was raised. This is particularly significant when we recognize that from the perspective of someone on the ark, it would have appeared as if the land was rising out of the water, regardless of whether this was due to the mountains actually rising or the water receding. In other words, the text doesn’t seem to be describing this event from a phenomenal perspective, but from an objective one.

3) To claim that over eleven miles of tectonic uplift (the difference between the deepest ocean chasm and the tallest mountain) could have taken place in a year’s time poses insurmountable problems. A magnitude six earthquake only creates two inches of uplift. Multiply this by 180 million. In such a situation, the passengers on board the ark could not have survived. Moreover, there would have been aftershocks which would have been powerful enough to completely wipe out the post-flood population.

Miracles and ad hoc-ness
At this point, some will no doubt object that to say these things couldn’t happen is simply to disbelieve in a God who performs miracles. Surely God could have uplifted the mountains supernaturally rather than through tectonic uplift so that the lives of those on board the ark were not threatened. Or surely he could have supernaturally preserved their lives, and supernaturally prevented the aftershocks from destroying the post-flood population.

But the problem with these suggestions is not that they are miraculous; the problem with them is that they are ad hoc. That is, they are made in the absence of any biblical evidence in their favor, in order to salvage the “flood geology” model. The more a theory goes beyond the given facts, the more ad hoc, or contrived, it is.

Let me give you an example of an ad hoc theory: I have an audiotaped debate between William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher) and Robert Greg Cavin on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Cavin acknowledges that the historical evidence proves that Jesus was killed and buried, that the tomb was found empty a few days later, that many people experienced what they understood to be appearances of Jesus alive from the dead, and that the original disciples of Jesus believed that he had been physically, bodily resurrected. These are the given facts on which Craig and Cavin agree. However, Cavin doesn’t accept the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation of these facts: rather, he believes it’s more plausible that Jesus had an evil twin. Seriously. They were separated at birth when one of a pair of identical twins was switched with the baby to whom Mary had given birth. They were raised geographically separated from each other, and immediately after Jesus was killed, the twin just happened to arrive in Jerusalem and, learning of the events, decided to steal Jesus’ body and impersonate his long lost brother for no readily apparent reason.{vii} Obviously, Cavin’s theory is completely contrived and ad hoc; in order to make the evil twin scenario work, he has to keep suggesting all sorts of bizarre details that we simply have no reason to believe. By way of contrast, in order to accept the resurrection, the only extra supposition we have to make beyond the given facts which Craig and Cavin agreed on is that a God capable of doing it exists—and for many people, this wouldn’t be an additional supposition since they already believe in God.

The resurrection is not ad hoc because it is not a contrived explanation of the situation, like the “evil twin” theory. As Wolfhart Pannenberg put it, the significance of the resurrection is not that some guy came back to life; it’s that this particular guy did. Jesus presumed to speak and act with the authority of God, and this is why he was executed. His resurrection amounts to his divine vindication.{viii} Of course, this doesn’t mean that it is true, only that it is not ad hoc. It makes sense of the given data without requiring that further data be accepted that we do not have evidence for.

God of the gaps
A common objection made against Christianity is that it implies a “god of the gaps.” This refers to the fact that Christians have sometimes used gaps in our knowledge to say that some unexplained phenomenon was evidence for God acting supernaturally. Then later, when natural processes were discovered which provided a sufficient explanation, the “supernatural hypothesis” got scrapped. This criticism is often valid, and is partially responsible for the widespread (but inaccurate) belief that scientific knowledge is slowly weeding out religion.

However, Christianity’s critics usually go a step further and argue that any miraculous claim invokes a “god of the gaps,” since presumably we may yet discover that natural processes are responsible for everything that has ever occurred. For example, just because we have not yet discovered natural processes that could explain how a man dead for three days could return to life with a glorified body, it doesn’t mean that forthcoming evidence will not supply a naturalistic explanation.

At this point, it becomes evident that such critics are simply making the opposite error by employing a “naturalism of the gaps.” They have faith that a naturalistic explanation will be discovered for the phenomenon in question. The problem with any “gaps” argument is that it bases its validity on what is unknown rather than on what is known. When the Christian claims that God raised Jesus from the dead, it is not based on what is unknown, since she takes the relevant data from the Bible. Of course, it may still be false—the data may be demonstrated to be inaccurate—but it cannot be accused of being a “gaps” type of argument. Conversely, if someone were to say that Jesus was really an extra-terrestrial or a time traveler who used advanced technology to fake his resurrection, this is based on what is unknown, since there is nothing in the data, either our knowledge of Scripture or of the world, to suggest that such events occurred. Therefore, this is a “naturalism of the gaps” argument.

By now I hope it’s obvious that the reason “gaps” arguments are invalid is because they are ad hoc. Criticisms of “god of the gaps” arguments are valid when the claim being critiqued is ad hoc; but just because a claim employs a supernatural explanation, it does not automatically make it ad hoc or contrived. Think of the evil twin theory: the naturalist explanation here is absurdly ad hoc, while the supernaturalist explanation, that Jesus actually rose from the dead, is not.

Now apply this to the current example of “flood geology”: the given facts in this case are the biblical data. But there is nothing in the text to suggest that “the waters above” referred to a primeval water canopy surrounding the earth (except insofar as the clouds and atmosphere itself is such a canopy). Nor is there anything in the text to suggest that God collapsed a canopy to cause the flood, or that he supernaturally caused nearly a dozen miles of tectonic uplift to take place during the flood, much less that the passengers on the ark and the post-flood population were supernaturally protected from the effects of such events.

When we try to explain biblical data, we must avoid positing extra miracles beyond those Scripture relates. If we were allowed to patch up all the holes in our theories by saying that God performed some miracle, virtually any interpretation could be defended. This point is made fairly well by Henry Morris, in fact.

It would be helpful to keep in mind Occam’s Razor (the simplest hypothesis which explains all the data is the most likely to be correct), the Principle of Least Action (nature normally operates in such a way as to expend the minimum effort to accomplish a given result), and the theological principle of the Economy of Miracles (God has, in His omnipotence and omniscience, created a universe of high efficiency of operation and will not interfere in this operation supernaturally unless the natural principles are incapable of accomplishing His purpose in a specific situation), in attempting to explain the cause and results of the great Flood.{ix}

Unfortunately, Morris violates these principles himself. For example, in attempting to respond to the argument that the eight people on board the ark could not have fed, cared for, and cleaned up after more than a few thousand animals at most, Morris and Whitcomb suggest that many of the animals may have gone into hibernation—even though most of the animals taken on board wouldn’t normally hibernate, those that do would only do so for a season and not for the year that they were on the ark, and hibernating for such a significantly longer time would create severe health problems for the animals. They then state that God could certainly have performed such an act, and that anyone who questions this doesn’t really have faith in a God of miracles.{x} But of course, the objection to this is not that it is miraculous but that there is no biblical evidence that any of it happened. This is what makes it so implausible, not the fact that it espouses a miraculous explanation.

Objections and responses
Objection: There is no evidence that circumcision existed prior to the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, it was a brand new thing which God used to represent his promise to Abraham. So the seal of the Noachian covenant (the rainbow) could also have been a brand new thing, in which case the flood must have been the first time it rained.

Response: Well, first of all, it’s unclear exactly when circumcision was invented; it may very well have been practiced prior to Abraham’s time. At any rate, absence of evidence does not correspond to evidence of absence. Even if there was no evidence of circumcision before the Abrahamic covenant, this doesn’t require us to believe that it had never been done before.

Second, and more importantly, this misses the point: circumcision is taking something people are already familiar with and altering it. For example, if God had sealed the Abrahamic covenant by having his descendants get tattoos of a cross, and if no one had ever been tattooed before, it still wouldn’t be a brand new thing, since people were already familiar with dark liquids (ink) and skin. Or take another example: imagine that baptism never existed before Jesus’ time. In this case, while the action of baptism would have never been done before, the elements (water and people) already did. God would have been taking something that people were already familiar with, and saying “from now on, this represents my promise to you.”

Objection: Ps. 148:1-6 calls upon the various aspects of God’s creation in the heavens to praise God. Verse 4 states, “Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.” This obviously does not refer to clouds and precipitation, but rather to a water canopy that was above the clouds.

Response: This verse causes more problems for the canopy theory than it solves. The text does not refer to the “waters above the skies” as a past phenomenon, but as a present one. That is, it was something that existed at the time Ps. 148 was written in the first millennium BC. If the canopy collapsed in the time of Noah, it wasn’t still in existence for the Psalmist, and so he couldn’t (and wouldn’t) call upon it to praise the Lord.

In fact, after calling upon various elements of the heavens to praise God, the text states that “He set them in place for ever and ever” (148:6). If these waters had been absent since the time of Noah, this statement would be incorrect. Thus, this phrase cannot refer to a water canopy that used to surround the earth but collapsed.

It is true, of course, that the phrase “highest heavens” cannot refer to clouds and precipitation. But neither can it refer to a water canopy that surrounded the earth. Such a canopy would not have been higher than the sun, moon, and stars which are in the heavens. The resolution to this is that Ps. 148 doesn’t merely call upon the elements of the physical heavens to praise God, but calls upon the elements of the spiritual heavens as well (such as angels). And in ancient Hebrew cosmology, the “highest heavens” always referred to the spiritual heavens.{xi}

Finally, what exegetical evidence is there to claim that this passage refers to the separation of the water below from the water above in Gen. 1? The only connection I can see is that, by referring to waters in the highest heavens, it is recalling the statement in Gen. 1 that God set the waters above the expanse of the sky.{xii} But the other biblical passages mentioned earlier have much stronger exegetical links to Gen. 1, since they refer to God’s establishment of the world or heavens, as well as to waters below and waters above, clearly defining the latter as clouds and precipitation (Prov. 3:19-20; 8:27-29).

Notes:
{i} Ronald Numbers (1993); (1995); Don Stoner (1997).
{ii} Isaac Vail (1874); (1921).
{iii} Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:3-16.
{iv} Hugh Ross (1998), 115-22. Of course, there’s much more to why human lifespans are limited than interstellar rays and mutations.
{v} For example, the NASB translates vs. 8 as “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them”; and the ESV as “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.” In contrast, the KJV translates it as “They [the waters] go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them”; and the NIV as “they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.”
{vi} See chapter 6.
{vii} William Lane Craig and Robert Greg Cavin (1995).
{viii} Wolfhart Pannenberg (1975), 92-4.
{ix}
{x} John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961), 70-9.
{xi}
{xii} It may also be the case that “the highest heavens” and the “waters above the skies” are not referring to the same thing. The text may be saying, “Praise him you highest heavens, and also praise him you waters above the skies.” This is a possible interpretation, although I don’t think it’s very likely exegetically, since it seems to be poetic reiteration.

Chapter 10: Further Objections

2008-12-12T21:52:00.053+01:00

Objection: Mark 10:6-8 states, “at the beginning of creation (ktiseos) God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.” In this statement and its parallel in Matt. 19:4-6, Jesus ties the sanctity of marriage to the fact that God made Adam and Eve “at the beginning of creation.” Therefore, the universe couldn’t have existed for long before human beings were created.

Response: The beginning of the creation of what? The universe? That’s certainly plausible: “the beginning” may be a reference back to the opening line of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But this raises an obvious problem: human beings weren’t made male and female at the beginning of the universe because they weren’t created at the beginning of the universe. They were day six. If Jesus’ statement refers to the beginning of the universe, it would be just as much a problem for the calendar-day interpretation as the day-age view. But regardless, I think this is easily resolved. “The beginning of creation” could just refer to the total era recorded in Gen. 1, when God was creating new types of physical things. This resolves the problem regardless of how long you think this period was; it could just as easily be a period of billions of years as a period of six calendar days.

However, Jesus may not be referring to the beginning of the universe’s creation in this passage. The context of Jesus’ statements, after all, is human beings and the institution of marriage. Why wouldn’t it refer to their creation? In other words, Jesus is probably saying that when God first made people, he made them male and female, and it is upon this fact that the marriage covenant is based. And again, this would hold regardless of how old the universe is.

Objection: Rom. 1:19 states that “God’s invisible qualities” have been “clearly seen” “since the creation of the world.” Therefore, human beings have been around as long as the universe.

Response: Well, again, human beings haven’t been around as long as the universe since they weren’t created until the sixth day of creation. This is just as much a problem for the calendar-day advocate as the day-age advocate. So then we (presumably) have to ask who did witness the universe before the creation of human beings. One could argue that, since the angels witnessed God’s acts of creation (Job 38:4-7), this verse could be referring to their observation of “God’s invisible qualities.” But I suspect Rom. 1:19 is simply referring to creation’s testimony, regardless of whether there were observers to actually receive this testimony. The Apostle Paul is just saying, “the physical universe has testified to God’s existence ever since its instantiation.” That’s its nature.

Objection: Rom. 8:20-22 states “the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” This refers to the second law of thermodynamics which was instigated when God put a curse on the land after Adam and Eve sinned.

Response: I have several responses to this: first, while “bondage to decay” is an excellent, albeit negative, description of the law of entropy (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics), nature doesn’t really experience frustration because nature is not a person; Paul is obviously writing metaphorically here to express a theological truth by personifying nature. Second, the passage in question states that the one who subjected creation to futility did so with the intention of eventually freeing it. If we must assume that this has a connection to the fall of humankind, neither Adam and Eve nor Satan sinned in order to set nature “free” from this “bondage”; they sinned because they wanted to be like God (Gen. 3:5). Besides these three, the only other agent involved in the fall of humanity is God. Thus, the one who subjected creation to futility must be God. This is true regardless of whether this refers to the fall of humanity or not: God is the only agent who is willing and able to bring creation “into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” (cf. Rev. 21:1-5)

Third, this verse doesn’t tell us when God did this, except to say that “the whole creation has been groaning … right up to the present time.” This sounds like it’s referring to the entire history of the universe, not just the part that came after the fall of humankind. To tie this verse to the sin of Adam and Eve is purely conjectural. In addition to this, the fact that God’s acts of creating new types of physical things are represented as being unique to the first six days of creation, as well as the fact that there are passages in the Bible which refer to the steadfastness of the patterns or “fixed laws” of nature (Jer. 31:35-7; 33:19-26), argue strongly that the laws of thermodynamics are some of the patterns God created the universe to have “in the beginning,” not something that began after Adam and Eve sinned.

Objection: 2 Pet. 3:5-6 states, “…long ago by God’s word the heaven existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.” Thus, the creation of the world and Noah’s flood belong to the same era. So not much time could have transpired between these two events.

Response: Well, I have no problem saying that the creation of the world and Noah’s flood belong to the same era. Specifically, “the world of that time” refers to the era of everything up to and including the flood. How long that era was is an issue that this verse simply does not address. To assume that it could only have been a few hundred years strikes me as completely arbitrary; it could just as easily have been billions of years. I see no reason to think otherwise.

Objection: The genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11 don’t allow for an old earth. They are very specific: “A lived for X years and begot (or became the father of) B.” When these ages are all added up you end up with a date of about 4,000 BC; thus this constitutes evidence for a young earth.

Response: First of all, even if this argument were valid, it would only demonstrate a recent creation of humanity, not of the earth or the universe. Claiming that human beings were created in 4,000 BC tells us absolutely nothing about how old the rest of creation is. This objection doesn’t even address the age of the universe.

Second, there are several factors in this issue which need to be dealt with before we can consider the case closed: for example, the ancient Hebrew concepts of father and son were not limited to the individual’s male parent or offspring, but applied to any male ancestor or descendent; thus you have statements like, “Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), even though there were many intervening generations between Abraham and David, and between David and Christ.

This goes far beyond the mere use of the words “father” and “son,” but applies to the concept of parenthood regardless of the terminology used. Case in point, the Hebrew verb “to beget” used in the Genesis genealogies (yalad){i} is used in the above sense, particularly in the book of Genesis: we are told that Canaan begot whole ethnic groups (10:15-18), and that Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah begot their grandchildren and great-grandchildren (46:6-25). So we see that the concept of parenthood, and the terms used in the Genesis genealogies in particular, can refer to any ancestor and not merely to one’s parent.

In fact, the concept of fatherhood is sometimes even extended to one’s predecessor regardless of whether or not they’re related. Gen. 4:20-21 describes Jabal as “the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock,” and his brother Jubal as “the father of all who play the harp and flute.” What’s especially interesting about this passage is that the context in which it occurs is concerned with biological fatherhood. Thus, the Genesis genealogies move back and forth between different concepts of fatherhood without any textual indications that they are doing so.

This leads us to another factor: Jewish genealogies were not exhaustive, nor were they meant to be understood as such. Rather, they were selective to give the “highlights,” or to emphasize a numerical structure by reducing the number of names to a multiple of seven and/or ten (this is called “telescoping”). For example, when Matthew describes the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1) he deliberately skips over several people who lived during the exile to Babylon. Why? Because he’s trying to arrange it so that there are 14 names from every period he’s describing (from Abraham to David; from David to the Babylonian exile; and from the exile to Christ). This does not constitute error, it’s simply the way the ancient Jews wrote genealogies. A similar pattern is found in the genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11 where each list consists of ten names, which implies that the author was limiting who he included for some literary purpose. Other examples of this include Gen. 4:17-18 which lists 7 names; Ruth 4:18-22 which lists 10 names; 1 Chr. 1:5-23 (the list of the nations) which lists 70 names, and Luke 3 which lists 77 names (21 + 21 + 14 + 21).

In fact, the Bible specifically tells us that there are gaps in the Genesis genealogies: in Luke 3:35-36 we are told that Noah was the father of Shem, who was the father of Arphaxad, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Shelah. But this genealogy is mentioned twice in the early chapters of Genesis, and in both cases Cainan is not mentioned. Instead we are told that Arphaxad begot Shelah (Gen. 10:24; 11:12):

Luke: Noah --> Shem --> Arphaxad --> Cainan --> Shelah
Genesis: Noah --> Shem --> Arphaxad ---------------> Shelah

Again, I want to reiterate that this is not a contradiction, it’s just how Hebrew genealogies were written.{ii}

If we delve further, we find that there is a very close parallel to the Genesis genealogies elsewhere in the Bible: the genealogy from Jacob to Moses is described in four passages, two of which are traditionally ascribed to Moses himself (Exod. 6:16-20; Num. 26:57-59; 1 Chr. 6:1-3; 23:6-13). All of these passages list five generations: Jacob --> Levi --> Kohath --> Amram --> Moses. Part of the problem comes in when we recognize that Gen. 46:11 states that Kohath was born before the descent into Egypt, and one of the genealogies (Exod. 6:16-20) states how long the individuals lived. If we ignore the facts that Kohath was probably already a grown man when he went to Egypt, and that he and Amram probably didn’t father their children on their deathbeds, the maximum amount of time the Bible gives us between Kohath’s birth, before the descent into Egypt and the time when Moses led the people out of Egypt is Kohath’s lifetime (133 years) plus Amram’s lifetime (137 years) plus the age of Moses at the time of the Exodus (80 years—Exod. 7:7). But this only adds up to 350 years, and we know that the Hebrews were in Egypt for 430 years (Exod. 12:40-41).{iii}

This problem is further exacerbated when we note that 1 Chr. 7:20-27 covers the same period, giving the genealogy from Jacob to Joshua, a younger contemporary of Moses. Rather than listing only five generations, this passage lists twelve. Another problem is that Num. 3:27-28 states that at the time Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, Kohath had 8,600 male descendants. If Kohath was Moses’ grandfather, this number cannot be correct: if Kohath had 20 sons, and each one of them also had 20 sons, and each one of them also had 20 sons, you’d still come up short—not to mention the fact that the Bible never mentions such an extraordinary scenario. The only resolution to these problems is that there are gaps in Moses’ genealogy, and we cannot create a timetable based on the ages it gives.

When the Bible intends that a series of numbers be added together to produce a total, it gives this total itself (Num. 1:46; 2:32; Matt. 1). Since the genealogies in Exod. 6:16-20 and Gen. 5 and 11 do not give any such summation, or are ever used to provide such a summation anywhere else in the Bible, they were not intended to specify the amount of time that passed during these genealogies. The ages are given rather to demonstrate the age at which someone became a father, and how long he lived, because fatherhood and old age are considered blessings from God.

So how should we understand the genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11? Given the fluidity of the Bible’s concept of fatherhood and the nature of biblical genealogies, when the text says “A lived X years and begot B,” it could simply mean that A was X years old when he became the ancestor of B; that is, when he fathered the genetic line that would eventually culminate in the individual B and the B tribe. To apply it to the case where we know of a gap, when the text says, “When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah” (Gen. 11:12), it means Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Cainan, and Cainan eventually fathered Shelah. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that there are probably more gaps between Arphaxad and Cainan and between Cainan and Shelah. Moreover, when we note that the Bible often refers to representatives of nations or tribes (like Canaan, Israel, or Judah) as if they are the individuals they are descended from and named after (Jdg. 1:3; Ps. 80:1), “A” and “B” could merely refer to representatives of the A and B clans, either ancestors or descendants of A and B.{iv}

Since biblical genealogies vary greatly in how complete they are, we can safely say that the Genesis genealogies place the creation of Adam between about 7,500 years ago (if they are 80% complete) and 60,000 years ago (if they are 10% complete). And just in case you’re wondering, human beings (homo sapiens sapiens) are estimated to have first appeared on the earth between about 25,000 and 50,000 years ago.{v}

Objection: Jude 14 refers to Enoch as “the seventh from Adam.” Therefore, there were no gaps in the genealogies from Adam to Enoch in Gen. 5:18-24.

Response: Jude 14 is referring to the genealogy in Gen. 5: Enoch is the seventh name listed in the genealogy. This does not imply that there were no gaps in it.

Objection: Isa. 65:25 states

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox,
But dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy.

This passage (and a parallel one in Isa. 11:6-9) gives a very clear image of what it was like in Eden before the fall. Therefore, there was no animal death before Adam and Eve sinned.

Response: First, the context very clearly defines this verse as an image of “a new heavens and a new earth” a few verses earlier in 65:17. It’s describing the new creation in which “the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4), not the garden of Eden. Perhaps it is using imagery of Eden before the fall to do so, but it is question-begging to simply assume this. That has to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

Second, this passage includes the following statement:

Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed. (Isa. 65:20)

But this is referring to the new heavens and earth, in which “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4)! Obviously, these are simply images taken from the daily life of Isaiah’s audience with certain aspects—death by dangerous animals or dying young—removed.

Third, if it is using “Edenic imagery,” this fits just as well with the claim that there were no carnivorous animals in Eden. In this case, Isaiah is simply describing a world in which the human suffering that results from carnivores and dangerous animals is no longer present. Since his audience lived (and lives) in a world in which there are carnivores and dangerous animals, he expressed this idea with the animals they knew, but without their carnivorous or dangerous properties.

Fourth, this passage is poetry. It’s imagery. It’s not meant to be taken literally.

Objection: The day-age theory is based on secular science, not the Bible.

Response: First of all, even if this were the case, it’s a fallacious argument known as the genetic fallacy. You don’t prove a belief wrong by showing how it originated, but by examining the evidence for and against it. If I believe the Bible is the word of God because my parents told me so, pointing this out does not somehow prove that the Bible is not the word of God. It is necessary to make a distinction between how we come to believe something and whether the object of that belief is true. Second of all, the first section of this little treatise deals with biblical grounds for thinking the days of creation can be reasonably understood as long periods of time. I’m not defending it by appealing to science.

Third, this objection is simply false. Several Church fathers claimed that it’s difficult to understand what the days of creation really refer to,{vi} while others thought that they were millennia.{vii} Clearly, these views cannot have been motivated by a desire to harmonize Scripture with science, since there was virtually no scientific evidence at that time concerning the age of the universe.

Fourth, many Christians before the modern era, such as Augustine and most of the Church fathers, believed that we should allow extra-biblical knowledge inform our interpretation of the Bible.{viii} As David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers, two historians of science, write, “The notion that any serious Christian thinker would even have attempted to formulate a world view from the Bible alone is ludicrous.”{ix} To illustrate, Jesus seems to identify the fall of Jerusalem with his return in Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17. If we don’t let the extra-biblical evidence (in this case, secular history) inform our interpretation, we would have to conclude either that Jesus has already returned and we just didn’t notice it, or that Jerusalem never really fell in AD 70.{x}

Objection: Belief that the universe is 13.5 billion years old is a part of the evolutionary time scale. It’s mandatory to posit an ancient universe in order to supply the necessary time for evolution to take place.

Response: As I said in the Introduction, I will not be addressing whether or not evolution is true. Here, I will only point out two things. First, there are plenty of old-earth creationists, Christians who accept that the universe is billions of years old but do not accept evolution. So it seems clear that you can accept one without the other.

Second, young-earth creationist ministries actually appeal to biological macro-evolution in order to account for a) the origin of carnivores after the fall of humanity, and b) the presence of millions of species after only tens of thousands were potentially saved on Noah’s ark (a more realistic figure would be in the thousands or hundreds). Since the carnivores and millions of species were present immediately following the fall and the flood respectively, this evolution took place within a few hundred years at the most. This posits a super-efficient macro-evolution at a rate that Darwinists have never envisaged.{xi} That these ministries do so while condemning the much less radical evolution actually proposed by biologists strikes me as hypocritical.

Objection: If God needed to take billions of years to create the universe, he is not as powerful as if he did it in six days.

Response: God didn’t need to take billions of years to create the universe, nor did he need to take six 24-hour periods. He could have done it instantaneously. The issue is not what God could have done, but what God has done. The Bible claims that God created the universe over a period of time. Whether this period consisted of billions of years or a calendar week does not in any way limit God’s creative power. It just tells us how he used it.

Objection: If the universe existed for billions of years before human beings were created, humanity can’t have the significance the Bible ascribes to them.

Response: Well, the first thing to point out here is that whatever significance humanity has is derivative. We are significant, not because we are worthy, but because God loves us. And God doesn’t love us because we are lovable or lovely, but because he is loving.

Second, this objection can best be answered via analogy: does the vast size of the universe mean that human beings are insignificant? Some scientists such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have thought so.{xii} God could simply have created one sun, one moon, and one planet. Anything beyond this is excessive and suggests that there is nothing particularly important about us.

But of course, this is complete bunk. The ancients knew that the universe was incomprehensibly large, and that the earth was, for all practical purposes, infinitely small.{xiii} Aristotle, in the fourth century BC, wrote that “our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the Earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size.”{xiv} This was the standard view thereafter, and was made universal when Ptolemy re-affirmed it in the second century AD, writing that “The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point”{xv}; that is, as if it were infinitely small.

Of course, modern science has certainly discovered that the universe is even more incomprehensibly large than the ancients thought. But this does not suggest that the ancients and medievals thought it small, much less that humanity’s value was somehow tied up with its size. In fact, this is just another attempt by secularists to invent conflicts between Christianity and science in order to justify rejecting Christ.

People usually think the problem is how to reconcile what we now know about the size of the universe with our traditional ideas of religion. That turns out not to be the problem at all. The real problem is this. The enormous size of the universe and the insignificance of the earth were known for centuries, and no one ever dreamed that they had any bearing on the religious question. Then, less than a hundred years ago, they are suddenly trotted out as an argument against Christianity. And the people who trot them out carefully hush up the fact that they were known long ago.{xvi}

There’s another wrinkle to this story, however. In the 20th century, scientists discovered that in order for life to be possible in the universe, there are multiple conditions that must be met in the universe’s properties. The ratio of electrons to protons, the value of the fine-structure constant, the speed of light, etc., must all be precisely what they are in order for life to exist anywhere at any time in the universe’s history.{xvii} In fact, one of the conditions necessary for life is that there must be a certain amount of matter in the universe—that is, the universe must be a particular size. The amount of matter in the universe, its mass density, is directly related to the universe’s rate of expansion. The more matter there is, the more its gravitational effects will slow the expansion. But this expansion has to be very exact, so much so that the universe’s mass density must be precisely what it is to within one part in 10⁶⁰. If it were any greater, the universe would collapse on itself; but if it were any less, galaxies, stars, and planets would not form.{xviii} Thus, while the vast size of the universe may superficially seem to challenge the biblical concept that human beings are important to the Creator, a closer look shows the exact opposite.

In the same sense, a vast age of the universe doesn’t mean that human beings are unimportant to the Creator. And just as the universe must have a certain amount of mass for life to exist, so must the universe be a certain age in order for there to be solar-type stars in stable burning phases so that life can exist.{xix}

On a more spiritual level, when an individual comes face-to-face with the incomprehensible vastness of the universe, he gets a glimpse of its Creator. As unimaginably huge and powerful as the universe is, God is even more powerful and (if I may put it this way) bigger. Similarly, the unfathomable age of the universe (13.5 billion years) hints at God’s eternity. It gives us a glimpse into God’s everlasting nature and eternal power, the very aspects of God that the Bible tells us creation bears witness to (Job 15:7; Ps. 89:36-37; 90:2; Prov. 8:22-31; Ecc. 1:3-11; Mic. 6:2; Hab. 3:6; Rom. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:5). Such an astonishing agreement between the Bible and the universe should make us very wary of rejecting the testimony of either.

Notes:
{i}
{ii} I’ve seen several young-earth leaders try to explain this by arguing that the biblical text must have been corrupted at this point. They based this on the fact that the Septuagint (the earliest Greek translation of the Old Testament) includes Cainan in its translation of Gen. 10:24. However, all of the Hebrew texts of this verse do not include Cainan, and at any rate, it does not address Gen. 11:12, which lists Arphaxad as the father of Shelah. In order to make this work, they would have to argue that the Hebrew original mentioned Cainan in both Gen. 10:24 and 11:12, both texts were corrupted at precisely these points, none of the original Hebrew versions have survived, and the translators who wrote the Septuagint had access to the original version of 10:24 but not 11:12. This is completely ad hoc, since virtually any position could be defended using methodology like this.
{iii} If we wanted to be hyper-stringent, we could add another two years minus two days, if each man died a year before his birthday (ignoring, of course, how the ancient Hebrews calculated age), and another year and a half to include the entire gestation periods. So, Kohath was 133 years and 364 days old, impregnated his wife, died, and then nine months later Amram was born.
{iv} To read better treatments of this issue, see John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies”; William Henry Green (1890); and R. K. Harrison (1999), 147-52.
{v} Hugh Ross (1998).
{vi} Papias, Fragments 9; Theophilus of Antioch, Epistle to Autolycus 2:12; Origen, De Principiis 4:1:16; Against Celsus 6:61; Augustine, The City of God 11:6.
{vii} The Epistle of Barnabas 15; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 81; Victorinius of Pettau, On the Creation of the World.
{viii} See, for example, Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1:39. In the Conclusion, I quote the relevant text.
{ix} David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers (1987). See also Lindberg and Numbers (1986).
{x} Although it should be noted that Philip K. Dick, one of the great science-fiction authors (and a Christian) offered an even more unusual explanation (Philip Dick [1978]).
{xi} Hugh Ross (2004), 121-9; Greg Moore (2004); for examples, see John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961), 66-9; Henry Morris (2001); Carl Wieland (1992); (1996); (1997); (1999); (2001); (2003); Paula Weston and Wieland (1998); David Catchpoole and Wieland (2001); Don Batten (1996); (2000); Don Batten, et al. (2000), 182-3; Jonathan Sarfati (1997); (1999); Sarfati and Michael Matthews (2002); John Morris (1997); David J. Tyler (1997); John L. Groenlund (1998); Michael Brown (2005); Philip Bell (2003).
{xii} Carl Sagan (1993); Stephen Hawking (1988).
{xiii} Albert Van Helden (1985), 1-40.
{xiv} Aristotle, De Caelo 2:14.
{xv} Ptolemy, Almagest 1:5.
{xvi} C. S. Lewis (1970b), 75.
{xvii} Ross (2001), 145-67.
{xviii} Ross (2001), 54.
{xix} Ross (2001), 152, 176-80.

Chapter 11: The Testimony of Creation

2008-12-12T21:51:00.026+01:00

General Revelation
One of the most frequent and consistent themes throughout the Bible is that creation and its elements reveal God’s existence and nature. Numerous passages say that some of God’s characteristics, such as his righteousness and faithfulness, are expressed in creation. Some say that virtually everyone has some knowledge of God, because nature overwhelmingly testifies to his existence and action.

But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish of the sea inform you.
Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?
In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind. (Job 12:7-10)

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world. (Ps. 19:1-4)

Love and faithfulness meet together;
righteousness and peace kiss each other.
Faithfulness springs forth from the earth,
and righteousness looks down from heaven. (Ps. 85:10-11)

His lightning lights up the world;
the earth sees and trembles.
The mountains melt like wax before the LORD,
before the Lord of all the earth.
The heavens proclaim his righteousness,
and all the peoples see his glory. (Ps. 97:4-6)

God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth. (Hab. 3:3)

In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy. (Acts 14:16-17)

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)

This is a partial and very incomplete list. Other, more extensive passages along these lines include Job 38-40; Ps. 104; Acts 17:23-31 and many others.

The same view of creation that empties nature of divinity also makes it a revelation of God and leaves it filled with pointers to God. The fact that all things find their origin in the creative work of God means that everything, in some way, bears witness to the creation and is revelatory of the Creator. According to the Bible every rock and tree and creature can be said to testify of God, declare his glory and show forth his handiwork (Ps 8:1; 19:1; 104; 148). We might accurately speak of the creation as divine messenger (cf. Ps 104:3-4).{i}

Note that what is “shown forth” is that God created everything; that is, that each element of creation, as well as creation as a whole, bears the imprint of God’s craftsmanship. In other words, God didn’t create the universe and then remove all evidence that he did so; he created everything in such a way that it cries out that it comes from his hand.

This is one aspect of what is called “general revelation,” that is, revelation that is available to all people in all times (another aspect being the human conscience).{ii} This contrasts with “special revelation” which is only revealed to some people in specific times (this would include the Bible and the life of Jesus). As the Belgic Confession, written in 1561, put it:

We know him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.{iii}

Creation’s testimony vs. humanity’s testimony
A similar biblical theme is that the elements of creation are sometimes called upon as witnesses of the events which took place in their presence. For example, God states that heaven and earth will be a witness to his promises to the Hebrews (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; Ps. 50:4-6). The prophets call upon creation to bear witness to the truth of their message (Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 6:19; 22:29; Mic. 6:1-2). Often, stones are set in place or altars are made—Hebrew altars being simply uncut rocks piled on top of each other (Exod. 20:25; Dt. 27:5-6; Josh. 8:30-1)—so that these elements of creation can bear witness to promises made between God and people, or just between people (Gen. 28:16-19; 31:43-53; Josh. 22:26-34; 24:26-27; Isa. 19:19-20).{iv}

The witness of creation is even put side by side with the witness of special revelation (Deut. 30:19, 31:19, 26-28; Ps. 19). This isn’t because either of these witnesses can’t be trusted by itself—that we need one of them in order to verify or falsify the other—but because they are complementary. That is, they are equally valid and true, although not necessarily equally illuminating (obviously, special revelation tells us more about God than general revelation).

This contrasts strongly with the biblical statements about the reliability of human witness. We are warned that we need more than one person as a witness, for the simple reason that people lie (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19). A moment’s reflection will make evident why there is such a disparity between the witness of creation and the witness of human beings: creation and its elements don’t have wills, and thus cannot lie or misrepresent. They can’t give a false impression of what has transpired, because they can’t alter the effects that events have had upon them. Were this not the case, then all of the Scripture passages which tell us that God reveals his faithfulness and steadfastness through his creation would simply be wrong.

General and special revelation
While some outstanding theologians have tried to deny the doctrine of general revelation, such as Barth and some Dutch Reformed theologians, they did not do so because of the biblical evidence, but rather because their theological systems did not allow for any knowledge of God that does not come through special revelation. Their attempts to get around the numerous biblical statements that creation does reveal the truth about God to everyone who has ever lived are extremely forced, and represent a primary weakness of their otherwise brilliant theologies.{v}

Skepticism as to how far general revelation can be trusted to reveal truth is parallel to the same skepticism raised against special revelation: it has been argued by some theologians that Scripture is only inerrant in reference to spiritual or soteriological (salvation) issues, but might contain scientific and historical errors.{vi} I believe that Scripture is inerrant in all areas it touches upon, whether it be theological, historical, or scientific. My grounds for this are that the Bible purports to be revelation from God—the God of truth who cannot lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). As such, it is true and reliable in everything that it actually affirms.

Now, it might be said that this is what makes special revelation special; I would respond to the contrary that this is what makes it revelation. Similarly, general revelation is true and reliable because it’s revelation. What makes it general is the fact that it is generally available, and only communicates general ideas about God, such as his existence, his eternality, and his oneness—although these ideas may be communicated with very specific information. Special revelation is special in the sense that it is available in special circumstances (such as the hearing of the gospel) and communicates much more specific ideas about God, such as his plan for salvation and his triune nature.

It must also be noted that, just as special revelation is perspicuous (clear), so is general revelation; clarity is a characteristic of God’s revealing himself. He doesn’t speak to us in such a way that we can’t understand what he’s saying. However, just as special revelation can sometimes seem to be saying something it’s not (Luke 14:26), so can general revelation; when I look around myself, I don’t immediately perceive that the earth is roughly spherical, or is in motion around the sun, but on closer examination of all the evidence, I can’t help but conclude that it is.

To understand anything, of course, some intelligent attention and methodical inquiry is required. What is not mysterious also may not be obvious. And some subject matters are more difficult to penetrate than others. But God has created all things in such a way that they are inherently intelligible.

They have parts, these parts have properties, which in turn make possible relationships between the parts to form larger wholes, which in turn have properties that make possible relationships between larger wholes, that form still larger wholes, and so on. This basic structure of created reality applies to everything from an atom or grain of salt to the solar system or the galaxy, from a thought or a feeling to a whole person or a social unit.{vii}

The extent of general revelation
Some have argued that while we can trust what creation says about God, we can’t trust what it says about itself.{viii} It’s hard to make any sense of this, though: what creation tells us about God is derived from what it tells us about itself—that it was created and is ordered, from which we infer the existence of a Creator and Orderer. This doesn’t merely refer to the spiritual awe we feel when we look at the night sky and sense God’s creative hand as responsible (though it certainly means that too), but also to the intellectual recognition that the laws of nature imply a law-giver who exists independently of nature.

Perhaps a more sophisticated argument might be that only facts which point directly to God can be considered reliable, since the Bible only talks about the reliability of creation when we can infer God’s existence and action from it. Most scientific facts don’t seem to reflect God in any significant way: as Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland has stated, it’s difficult to see how the pressure, temperature, and volume in a mole of hydrogen gas point to God.{ix}

However, the Bible states pretty explicitly that creation as a whole, and everything in creation, points to God—every tree, every rock, every creature, as well as the interaction between everything (Job 36-38; Ps 8:1; 19:1; 104; 148). If we don’t see how some arbitrary scientific fact points to God, we have to focus on how it functions in the big scheme of creation. Everything in creation is a part of the grand design and, as such, points to God. This includes the minutiae and the seemingly insignificant facts (from a theological perspective) about the orbit of a particular electron around its nucleus.

Objections and responses:
Objection: Historical records only go back a few thousand years. Since no one was there but God, we can’t know of any event before this except by God’s Word.

Response: Creation was there, and according to the Bible, it declares what occurred. Moreover, even if there were people there, we know from the Bible that their testimony would not be as trustworthy as that of the universe. Creation is a much more reliable witness than fallen humanity.

Objection: We only know the more intricate aspects of creation by means of fallible human testimony. Therefore, they can’t be considered revelation.

Response: We only know the more intricate aspects of theology by means of fallible human testimony as well—most Christians don’t have detailed knowledge of Hebrew and Greek syntax, and have to rely on the experts. All this means is that we should not be uncritical in our examination of theology or science. But the Christian has no recourse to dismiss scientific claims that go against her interpretation of Gen. 1, any more than she can dismiss theological and exegetical claims that go against her interpretation of Gen. 1.

Objection: Perhaps a creation that looks billions of years old demonstrates how limitless God’s power is. If God can create a universe to look that different from how it actually is, he’s obviously a very powerful God.

Response: This is a statement that God created the universe with a false appearance of age, which will be dealt with in detail in chapter 13. For now, I’ll just say that if God tells us that the universe can be trusted to reveal his trustworthiness and faithfulness, then to make it look different than it actually is wouldn’t demonstrate his power. It would demonstrate his caprice, his chicanery, his untrustworthiness and unfaithfulness. Moreover, the creation of the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo) displays God’s power, and I don’t see how creating it to look differently than it is would more persuasively do so.

Objection: Sin has affected how we view creation. Therefore, we can’t trust what it seems to be telling us.

Response: Sin has also affected how we interpret the Bible. This doesn’t mean that we can’t trust what it seems to be telling us. It simply means that we are prone to error and have to be careful.

Objection: The natural world is cursed. It appears differently than it actually is because of the fall of humankind.

Response: But all of the statements in the Bible that say we can trust the witness of creation are made to fallen people living in a fallen world. In other words, God tells us that we can trust the witness of creation after the fall. Whether God’s statement that the land would be cursed (Gen. 3:17-19) affected a change in the natural world, or was just referring to the fact that God sent Adam and Eve out of the paradise he had created for them is a debatable point,{x} but creation’s witness was not affected. If God’s cursing of creation means that nature was fundamentally altered, it would bear witness to such alteration. Since it does not so bear witness, God’s cursing of creation did not fundamentally alter its nature, whatever else it means.

I think the problem here is that people apply the categories of humankind’s fall to creation’s fall. The effects in the first case are pervasive and impact every facet of the human being. However, there is no biblical or theological reason to think that this is true of creation, that its fall affected every aspect of the universe, such as its witness and reliability. Again, the Bible tells us after the fall that creation is a reliable and trustworthy witness.

Objection: Part of the concept of general revelation is that it is available to all people in all times. Therefore, modern discoveries do not qualify.

Response: Saying that general revelation is available to all people in all times is just theological shorthand for saying that creation is available to all people in all times to study, and thus all people are responsible for the knowledge gained thereby. It doesn’t mean that just because we in the modern world can discover more about creation than people in ancient times, that these new discoveries won’t testify to God’s creative hand. One of the most frequently cited examples of creation bearing witness to God is how the universe’s basic properties must be extremely fine-tuned in order for life to exist—and this knowledge was unknown until fairly recently.

Objection: The apostle Paul warned the church in Corinth, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Therefore, Christians should not trust sources of information other than the Bible, such as nature.

Response: The Greek term for “what is written” is gegraptai. This is a technical rabbinical term which referred exclusively to the Old Testament. The New Testament authors—and Paul, a rabbi, in particular—followed this use: whenever this term is used in the New Testament, it refers only to the Old Testament.{xi}

So if Paul intended to tell his readers not to go beyond the Old Testament in a general sense, this restriction would obviously include the New Testament. In other words, Paul would be saying to stick exclusively to the Old Testament in all things; in which case the New Testament should be considered null and void. Obviously, this is not an acceptable position for a Christian.

Fortunately, that’s not what Paul meant. The context of this passage is how the Corinthian church was setting up different parties, one following Paul, another following Apollos, and so on. Paul responds to this situation by saying to follow only God and his Christ, not mere men, and so not to go beyond what the Old Testament says about how all human beings are on an equal level before God. So Paul’s statement has a particular context, and should not be generalized from this context.

Objection: To trust nature violates the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Response: The doctrine of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is emphatically not the claim that God only communicates to us through Scripture. Rather, sola Scriptura makes two claims: First, the knowledge obtained via special revelation is sufficient for salvation. But no one is suggesting that the Bible needs to be supplemented by general revelation in order for us to know God’s salvation plan, for the simple reason that general revelation is not supplying us with soteriological, or salvific, information. At most it convicts us of sin (Rom. 1:20) and shows us that God is providential (Acts 14:16-17). From these premises we could conclude that God may provide some sort of remedy for our sin, but this is far from certain. This is discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

Second, sola Scriptura is the claim that when God does communicate to us, he does so in a way that we can understand, not in some kind of spiritual language that is different from ordinary language, and is therefore inaccessible to study or analysis. This doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is simple, or should be understood superficially any more than physics should be. But it’s not written in some kind of secret code that only a spiritually elite class can understand.

Notes:
{i} “Creation” (1998), 181, italics added. See some very similar sentiments in C. S. Lewis (1961), 69-71.
{ii} I’m conflating creation’s testimony of God’s existence with its testimony of God’s goodness or providence.
{iii} Belgic Confession, art. 2.
{iv} Obviously these latter cases are not as trustworthy as the former cases, since they involve human beings altering nature in order to bear witness to something. I’m including them because they alter nature in an extremely limited way, by simply moving a rock into a different position, or moving several into a pile.
{v} Erickson (1998a), 187-94; Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest (1996), 1:64-5, 81-2.
{vi} Dewey Beegle (1973), 175-224.
{vii} Dallas Willard (2002), 31.
{viii} James B. Jordan (1999).
{ix} J. P. Moreland (1987), 200.
{x} See chapter 6.
{xi}

Chapter 12: Some Issues That Arise

2008-12-12T21:49:00.039+01:00

Affirming that God communicates to all people through what he has created raises difficulties which compel some to deny the doctrine of general revelation altogether. Issues such as the different means by which special and general revelation testify to God, or whether someone can be brought to repentance solely on the basis of general revelation, present us with challenges that need to be addressed.

How creation testifies
Here are the logical steps by which creation reveals God:

1. Creation reliably testifies about itself.

2. Therefore, creation reliably testifies about itself when it shows itself to be created and ordered.

3. Therefore, we can validly infer from creation that there is a Creator and Orderer.

Point 1 must be true in order for point 2 to be true; or conversely, if point 1 were false, then point 2 would be false as well. Creation could not reliably testify about itself when it shows itself to be created if it didn’t reliably testify about itself. The former (point 2) is a sub-category of the latter (point 1). Similarly, point 2 must be true in order for point 3 to be true. If creation did not reliably show itself to be created and ordered, then our inference that there must be a Creator and Orderer would not be valid, since it would be based on unreliable premises.

Now, Scripture only explicitly states point 3. But point 3 presupposes point 2, and point 2 presupposes point 1. Therefore, the idea that the interaction of everything in the universe points to God presupposes that every individual element of creation can be trusted to display the truth about itself. This extends to every level of creation, and thus is true of recent scientific discoveries unknown in previous times. As mentioned earlier, the incredible degree of fine-tuning that the universe must have in order for life to be possible was unknown for most of human history; the space-time density, for example, must be fine-tuned to within one part in 10¹²⁰ in order for any kind of physical life to exist. But the fact that this property wasn’t even discovered until the 20th century doesn’t mean that it doesn’t show itself to come from God’s hand and display his glory. In fact, the degree of complexity necessary for the occurrence of life is one of the most commonly cited evidences that the universe was made by an intelligent agent.

Romans 1:18-20
But who receives creation’s testimony? As noted in the previous chapter, the testimony of creation is sometimes referred to in concert with special revelation (Deut. 30:19, 31:19, 31:26-28; Ps. 19), but this is not always the case: those who have no access to any other revelation from God have still been given knowledge of God through his creation.

One of the primary texts for this issue is Rom. 1:18-20. This passage begins with the following statement: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…” Some understand this last phrase to essentially overturn the doctrine of general revelation. While creation testifies to God, this knowledge is suppressed; and so whatever witness creation displays is ignored.

But what exactly is being suppressed here? Go back to the three steps by which creation bears witness: 1, it reliably testifies about itself; 2, therefore it reliably testifies about itself when it reveals itself to be created and ordered; 3, we infer the existence and action of God from this order. Do those who deny God’s existence deny that the universe reliably presents itself to us (point 1), or that it is ordered (point 2)? Of course not. They deny that we can validly infer God’s existence from this order (point 3). In other words, the suppression that Rom. 1:18 speaks of is not a suppression of the facts of nature, it is a suppression of the inference from the facts of nature to the existence of a Creator: it is a suppression of the recognition that there must be a God. There is nothing in this passage, or any other passage in the Bible, to suggest that our observations of the universe can’t be trusted to reveal the truth about the universe. Nor is there anything to suggest that most of our inferences from these observations can’t be trusted. It’s only when the inference points to God that it becomes suppressed.

The passage continues in verses 19 and 20 by stating “…since what may be known about God is plain to them [men], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

This passage makes several claims:

4. The testimony of creation is available to all people at all periods of human history. This is evident from the statement that this testimony has been present “since the creation of the world.”{i} Therefore, this witness was available to people who lived in times prior to the Bible’s composition, and who had no special revelation from God; as such, it was and is available to those in post-biblical times who lived in places where they did not have access to special revelation, as well as those who live in such places today.{ii}

5. The testimony of creation is a reliable revelation of God; or, in other words, creation reveals the truth about God. This is evident from the statements that creation’s testimony reveals “what may be known about God,” and that it reveals “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature.”

6. The testimony of creation is clear and understandable. This is evident from the statements that it has “been clearly seen,” “understood,” and “is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.”

7. God holds people responsible for their response to the testimony of creation. This is evident from the statement that they “are without excuse.”

Thus, people who have never heard the gospel message and never read a Bible verse (point 4) still have some true knowledge of God through his creation (point 5) which communicates to them clearly and understandably (point 6), and they are held accountable for their response to it (point 7).

So, if people who have never received any special revelation from God are still given clear and true communication of who God is from creation and are held accountable for their response to this communication, what does it mean? It means that creation is an autonomous witness to God, and its testimony is valid independently of the Bible. It does not have to be interpreted through the lens of the Bible before it can be considered to be a valid and reliable revelation from God. The only alternative to this is simply unsound: if we deny this it could be claimed that, by not having access to special revelation, those who have not heard the gospel simply didn’t have access to the right filter or lens or interpretative framework from which they could accurately interpret creation’s testimony. But this contradicts the claim that creation’s testimony is understandable (point 6) to those who do not have special revelation (point 4). Moreover, even if we ignore this for the moment, we have to remember that God is just (Ps. 67:4). He would not hold people accountable for their response to something (point 7) that he never gave them access to. In order for creation to be a true and trustworthy revelation to those who don’t have any other revelation—as the Bible says it is—its validity must hold independently of the Bible.

Objectivity
But many young-earth proponents argue that in order for general revelation to be correctly interpreted, it must be understood through the lens of special revelation. Facts, they say, do not speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted. Thus, it is perfectly valid to understand scientific discoveries within the context of one’s understanding of the Bible.

This is partially true: complete objectivity is impossible, and our understanding of the world often prevents us from seeing evidence that goes against this understanding. Our presuppositions are what we look at the world through, so we often forget to look at them, and we can even forget that we have them in the first place. This is why it’s important to examine our presuppositions and acknowledge them. We are fallible, and thus so are our understandings.

However, it just isn’t true that evidence does not speak for itself. People frequently change their mind, perspective, political affiliation, or worldview based on the evidence.{iii} Evidence doesn’t equally fit into any given understanding of the world. Most atheists acknowledge that some aspects of the universe display such a degree of order that they can seem to bespeak of an Intelligence that is responsible for them; but they deny that such an inference is valid. This accession would be pointless unless the evidence does speak for itself, and they feel it necessary to warn people not to accept its testimony.{iv}

So how could evidence speak for itself? It can make us instinctively infer something that does not fit in with our usual categories or worldview. This is simply the way God has created our minds to function. In the above example, our minds instinctively infer the existence and action of an ordering agent from the observation that nature is ordered, and those who don’t believe in God have to find some way to reject and suppress this inference. Of course, this doesn’t mean that any instinctive inference we make is thereby infallible. We should certainly examine them to see if they hold up under scrutiny. Sometimes the instinctive inference that God is directly behind something can be false.

Moreover, to say that evidence doesn’t speak for itself, like some young-earth advocates do, damages the role of apologetics. Why bother defending Christianity if the facts can just as easily fit into a non-Christian worldview? In making this claim they are severely undermining any attempt to argue that Christianity is uniquely true, and that it uniquely accounts for the evidence better than any other worldview.

Much of this will turn on what we mean by “objectivity.” This term is often understood to mean looking at evidence from a neutral position, something which is simply impossible. Moreover, we not only cannot achieve it, in many ways we should not. It would be inappropriate for a Christian to try to stop believing in God while examining evidence that may confirm or undermine her worldview.

So by “objectivity,” I do not mean that we should try to pretend that we do not have the presuppositions and beliefs that we have. Rather, I mean that we should examine ourselves as deeply as we can so that we know exactly what our presuppositions are, and then analyze them to make sure that they are true. We must do this always with the recognition that we want to believe them simply because they are our presuppositions, and so will not want to accept evidence that contradicts them. Our emotions will always play a role in our beliefs. This is true for the Christian and atheist alike, regardless of whether they are willing to acknowledge it.

Here’s an analogy: our eyes are the means by which we look at the world, so we can never look at our eyes themselves. We cannot evaluate our eyes the same way that we evaluate other things with our eyes. We have to evaluate them “from within,” as it were, by looking through them rather than by looking at them. But of course the fact that we can only evaluate them in this way doesn’t mean that we won’t notice if our eyesight starts to get worse.

As I say, complete objectivity is impossible. For that matter, so is complete goodness. But this does not absolve us of trying to be as good as we can: recognizing that we’re not perfectly good simply does not lead to the conclusion that we shouldn’t bother trying to be good at all. Similarly, acknowledging that we can’t be perfectly objective doesn’t excuse us from evaluating our biases with the potential of seeing them refuted. We should strive to be as objective as possible, by acknowledging our biases, and examining them to see if they are true. The reason for this is just basic humility: we are prone to error, and we can therefore be wrong.

This is a biblical concept. Jesus warns us to “consider carefully how you listen” (Luke 8:18), and one of his most frequent exhortations is “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Rev. 2:7; 3:6, 13, 22).

One of Jesus’ deepest teachings concerned the manner in which we hear. This is so important that it cannot be emphasized enough. Specifically, Jesus alerted his hearers to the fact that they might not be using their ears simply for hearing but for other purposes as well—such as to filter and manage the message so it fits better their own lives and purposes. … Listening is an active process that may select or omit from, as well as reshape, the message intended by the speaker. Both listening and our other ways of perceiving turn out to be fundamental displays of our character, our freedom and our bondages. … If we do not want to be converted from our chosen and habitual ways, if we really want to run our own lives without any interference from God, our very perceptual mechanisms will filter out his voice or twist it to our own purposes.{v}

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that this denial that facts can speak for themselves is pure post-modernism. Post-modernism holds that there are no facts, only interpretations. The problems with this are daunting, so for now I’ll just point out that the claim “there are no facts, only interpretations” would be, according to this view, only an interpretation itself. Post-modernists are saying it’s a fact that there are no facts; it’s true that there are no truths. This is self-contradictory. “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”{vi}

The relationship between post-modernism and Christianity is very controversial, to say the least. Some think that it’s possible to have a post-modern Christianity, while others argue that it’s not.{vii} Obviously, those Christians who appeal to this to argue that general revelation must be interpreted through the lens of special revelation are not embracing post-modernism’s denial of truth. What they are doing is cherry-picking one aspect from post-modernism and using it to defend their rejection of creation’s testimony. I think this is unwise. Ideas have consequences, after all; and accepting one claim of post-modernism in one particular area leads to further claims in other areas that most Christians would not be comfortable with.

Who then can be saved?
While the witness of creation does not tell people how (or whether) they can be saved, it does tell them that there is a providential Creator to whom they are responsible. This is a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of general revelation: everyone who has ever lived, whether they have had access to the gospel or not, has some knowledge of God through creation, and they will be held accountable for their response to it.

Of course, this raises the issue of whether someone could respond positively to the witness of creation and thus be saved without having any access to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a scenario seems to conflict with the statement that Jesus is the only name by which we are saved (Acts 4:12), and would seriously abrogate the missionary enterprise to spread the gospel, i.e. the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Why should we tell people about Jesus if they don’t need to hear it in order to be saved?

But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be possible for someone who knows about God via general revelation to essentially throw herself at the mercy of the God of creation? Some theologians have suggested that such people would have Jesus’ sacrifice ascribed to them without their having any conscious knowledge of Jesus himself, in the same way that Old Testament Jews were saved.{viii} Of course, such a person could have no knowledge of being saved. The means of salvation is something revealed in special, not general, revelation. At best, such a person could know that there is a providential God, and that this God may have provided a way for them to escape from sin and condemnation (since he has provided for many of our needs). But they could never know this, or even be confident in it, much less that they have somehow acquired this means of salvation. Nevertheless, they would be truly saved, even though they’ve never heard of Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection.

I think this is incorrect. Scripture tells us that God has arranged human history, and that this includes people being positioned in particular times and places (Acts 17:26-27). It also tells us that God is omniscient, and that this extends to knowing what people would do under circumstances that are never actualized, or never come to pass (1 Sam. 23:10-13). With these two points, I take the position that God has arranged human history in such a way that if someone were to respond positively to general revelation (a big “if”), they are then providentially given special revelation via missionaries. Conversely, God arranges history so that those who have lived in times and places where no special revelation has been given are those who would not have responded to it, and did not respond to the general revelation they were given. I have found the writings of William Lane Craig particularly helpful on this issue.{ix}

Objections and responses
Objection: It’s possible for creation to reveal the truth about God while revealing falsehoods about itself.

Response: I don’t see how. Creation bears witness to having been created and ordered, and does so to those who have no other revelation from God to rely upon. Thus, we don’t get to determine beforehand how it testifies to him. In other words, we don’t get to put God in a box, only letting him reveal himself in ways we have pre-approved. In order to accept the idea that creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about God, we have to presuppose that it can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself. The Bible doesn’t give us any limitations in how far we can trust the witness of creation. Moreover, creation also testifies that its Creator is righteous and faithful (Ps. 85:10-11; 97:4-6). But if only some things about creation can be trusted and some things can’t, then one of the things this would reveal about God is that he can’t always be trusted, which is difficult to reconcile with his righteousness and faithfulness.

Objection: Creation does not communicate propositional knowledge to us. Therefore, its revelatory capacity is limited.

Response: Sure. It can only communicate general ideas about God, and does so via inferences rather than propositions, although it may communicate these ideas through very specific information. This does not give us any grounds for rejecting creation’s testimony, however. Just as some propositions are divinely inspired, so are some inferences (bearing in mind that an instinctive inference is not necessarily divinely inspired). The fact that we can validly infer a Creator from creation presupposes that creation as a whole and every element therein is a valid witness to itself.

Additionally, the communication of ideas via language should not be considered infallible. As Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston wrote: “…our language is not in any case a simple photograph of bare facts. It expresses interpretation. Hence it cannot be used as a touchstone of truth. And philosophy cannot be simply uncritical of so-called ordinary language. Nor can it be critical without indulging in theory. Needless to say, this is not a discovery of the present writer. It is a matter of common recognition.”{x}

Objection: Scripture is more authoritative than science. Therefore, we should interpret science in light of Scripture.

Response: This is not an appropriate dichotomy. It’s not about science and the Bible; it’s about creation and the Bible on one level, and on another level about our interpretation of creation and our interpretation of the Bible. In other words, it’s about our interpretation of general revelation (i.e. science) and our interpretation of special revelation (i.e. theology, narrowly defined).

Now, no problem arises when we interpret creation through the lens of Scripture when it concerns areas which general revelation cannot address (such as God’s salvation plan). But when they speak on the same subject they are complementary. Scripture says that those without special revelation are still responsible to God for their response to general revelation (Rom. 1:18-20). Since general revelation doesn’t address how to be saved, they can’t know how to be saved; but they can still know that there is a Creator to whom they are responsible. The fact that creation can be trusted to bear witness to being ordered, independently of the Bible, presupposes that creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself. After all, revelation is revelation; truth is truth. While one truth may be more important than another, it’s nonsensical to say that one truth is truer than another.

Objection: This chapter skirts the issue. Our presuppositions can never be examined or tested, because any alleged test or examination will presuppose them, and thus will end in a circular argument. It would only “prove” them by beginning with the assumption that they are true from the outset.

Response: It is true that some of our presuppositions are things that we can’t help but presuppose. Things like the laws of logic cannot be bracketed and proved on some other basis, since all possible thoughts can only have any validity whatsoever by assuming them. Such beliefs, therefore, are something like the bedrock level, the “last word” that we can’t get behind or around.{xi} But this only holds true for a very limited number of cases; it is not the case for the large majority of our presuppositions. Our political beliefs, for example, do not fit into this category: we can bracket them, and examine evidence for and against such beliefs. Such a bracketing would only be hypothetical or methodological; we would not really suspend our beliefs, but would simply be not letting ourselves base anything on them for the sake of their examination. This is precisely what Descartes did when he decided to see if there was anything we cannot help but believe. He even rejected mathematical truths by proposing that an evil genie could be systematically deceiving his mind whenever he tried to add two numbers together.{xii} But he didn’t really think this was a possibility, nor did he really disbelieve that 2 + 2 = 4 while engaged in this exercise.

Moreover, we can examine our presuppositions in a different manner than we examine beliefs we do not hold. Remember the analogy I gave with seeing: we can examine our eyes, not by looking at them (since they are the means by which we examine other things), but by looking through them. And if our eyesight starts to get worse, we would certainly be able to notice it.

Notes:
{i} Some claim that this means that there have been human beings around since the creation of the world. I address this in chapter 10.
{ii} Ignoring for the moment that God could have revealed himself to some people directly rather than via creation.
{iii} C. S. Lewis, for example, felt compelled by reason to accept the existence of God. He described this experience as that of “a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape” (C. S. Lewis [1956], 229).
{iv} For two examples, see Francis Crick (1988), 138; and Richard Dawkins (1987), 1. These are, however, scientists arguing that the degree of order in the biological realm should be understood in terms of evolution rather than a Creator. As I wrote in the Introduction, I am not addressing the truth or falsity of evolution here, and so I’m perfectly willing to grant that this order is better explained by evolution rather than direct creation.
{v} Dallas Willard (1999), 196-7.
{vi} Roger Scruton (1996), 6.
{vii} For a summary of positions on post-modernism’s relationship to Christianity, see Millard Erickson (1998b).
{viii} Millard Erickson (1996).
{ix} William Lane Craig (1989); (1993b); (1995a); (1995b); (2004a); (2004b).
{x} Frederick Copleston (1966), 506. This passage was also quoted in chapter 1.
{xi} Thomas Nagel (1997).
{xii} René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation I.

Chapter 13: Meditating on Adam’s Navel

2008-12-12T21:48:00.034+01:00

One argument that has been championed by some young-earth proponents is the idea that God created the universe “fully formed,” that is, with a false appearance of age. Thus, it is claimed that God created trees with annual rings, polar ice sheets with annual layers, and coral atolls with daily band deposits for days, years, and millennia that never happened.

Now, at face value, this idea seems so contrary to the consistent witness of Scripture that creation is a reliable and trustworthy revelation from God, that it can almost be summarily dismissed out of hand. However, proponents of this view give some biblical examples in which God seems to create with a false appearance of age, and use this to claim that it may therefore be true of the universe as a whole.{i} The following are the three primary examples I’ve seen suggested.

The creation of Adam and Eve
Many argue that when God created Adam and Eve, he didn’t create them as zygotes which then slowly grew to infancy, childhood, and eventually adulthood—he created them as adults.{ii} Since they were created “full grown” they bore the appearance of an age that they didn’t actually have.

The first problem with this claim can be illustrated by asking whether Adam’s and Eve’s cells and organs had physical indicators that they had been alive for twenty (or so) years. For example, according to this scenario God presumably created Adam and Eve with adult-sized hearts. But it doesn’t follow from this that these hearts bore the wear and tear of having been beating for twenty years—he created them brand new, not with a false appearance of age. Let me reiterate this: they would have appeared adult-sized AND brand new. The claim that being created as adults means being created with an appearance of age presupposes that size and age are essentially the same thing. This is obviously false.

Second, if the fact that they were created as adults indicated a false appearance of age, then we have opened a door we definitely do not want to go through. If Adam’s and Eve’s bodies bore a false appearance of age, we have no grounds to deny that their minds did as well. In other words, God may have created Adam and Eve with false memories of childhoods which never happened. And thus, there is nothing to prevent us from maintaining the same thing of our own memories. God, in other words, would be implanting false memories into our minds. I’ve never seen anyone suggest anything like this, and it seems so absurd, and so blatantly contrary to God’s truthful character, that I doubt any Christian would seriously propose it. But it’s unavoidable that this would be a possibility if we try to argue that God’s creation of Adam and Eve as adults implies that he created them with a false appearance of age.

Finally, the bodies of Adam and Eve are not here for us to examine to see if they really do bear a false appearance of age. But the universe is here for us to examine. We should always try to understand the unclear in light of the clear, not the other way around. We can’t employ what is, at best, a highly speculative interpretation of Scripture in order to deny the reality of the world around us.

Jesus changing water into wine
At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus changed water in several jars into wine (John 2:1-11). Wine is by its very nature an aged substance. It takes time to ferment. When Jesus made wine instantaneously out of water he either radically sped up the fermentation process, or he created the wine with the appearance of having experienced the fermentation process when it had not. In either case, the wine would have borne a false appearance of age.

However, it is not evident that the molecular structure of wine by itself indicates a particular age or appearance of age. The fact that alcohol is naturally produced by fermentation does not imply that if God supernaturally changes H₂O molecules into alcohol molecules, he makes them with the appearance of having been produced by fermentation. Just as the previous argument equates size with age, so this argument equates molecular structure with age, which again is obviously false.

When Jesus transformed water into wine, He did not simply “accelerate” time. … No amount of time turns water to wine. Water does not ferment. Nothing in the biblical text forces us to conclude that God used the fermentation process. He did certainly add to the water whatever gives wine its unique flavor, perhaps its color, too. All we know is that the guests were amazed at its excellent taste.

Taste and age are not equivalent. For example, a Japanese distillery has found a way to make new whiskey taste like thirty-year-old scotch. Even professional whiskey-tasters could not discern the difference. Chemical analysis could, however. We believe that Jesus’ transformation of the water can be described as a transcendent miracle. He supernaturally “treated” the water to give it the enjoyable qualities of wine.{iii}

I think some people who argue that changing the water to wine indicates an appearance of age are thinking of a wonderful passage by C. S. Lewis about Jesus’ miracles of fertility.{iv} Lewis points out that the water to wine and the multiplication of bread and fish (Matt. 6:30-44; 8:1-13) are doing something in a different way that God usually does through nature. Bread is multiplied in that a single seed grows into a full plant; fish are multiplied by procreation; and water is changed to wine through the growth of grapes and fermentation. “Thus, in a certain sense, He constantly turns water into wine.”

Of course, it all turns on the phrase, “in a certain sense.” The point of these miracles, Lewis argues, is that it shows that God is the God of fertility, the God of the vine, “He is the reality behind the false god Bacchus.” God usually accomplishes these things through the universe he made, but he can also do it directly, “short circuit[ing] the process.” To suggest that in these acts God is creating something with a false appearance of age is to completely miss the point. The miracle of changing water to wine was a miracle of transformation, not one of aging. God supernaturally changed the molecular structure of the water in the cisterns into the molecular structure of wine. This doesn’t mean that God “sped up” the natural process of fermentation any more than when someone mixes water with dehydrated wine.{v} Moreover, as with the bodies of Adam and Eve, the wine Jesus made from water is not present for us to examine. We simply cannot conclude, therefore, that it bore a false appearance of age.

The budding of Aaron’s staff
In Num. 17, we are told that the Israelites were jealous of the special position God had given Moses and Aaron, so God had Moses take the staffs from the leaders of each of the twelve tribes and place them in the tent of meeting. The following morning, Aaron’s staff had sprouted and budded, producing blossoms and ripe almonds. However, the miracle here was not that God “sped up” that natural process, but that he brought a dead piece of wood back to life. All of the reasons why the bodies of Adam and Eve and Jesus’ transformation of the water into wine don’t imply a false appearance of age also apply here. And just like the other two examples, we don’t have Aaron’s staff to examine to see if it really does exhibit a false age. How do we know that, upon closer examination, the bodies of Adam and Eve, the wine made from water, and Aaron’s staff wouldn’t give evidence that they had been supernaturally altered? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that God wouldn’t cover up or conceal such remarkable examples of his power by making them appear normal when they weren’t?

The trustworthiness of creation
None of the examples above constitute evidence that God creates things with a false appearance of age, and hence we have no grounds for asserting that he may have done so with the universe as a whole. The previous two chapters demonstrate that creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself, since God has gone to such lengths to tell us that it is a revelation by which he makes himself known to humanity. If this revelation weren’t trustworthy, it’s inexplicable why God would tell us that it is, unless God himself is a deceiver.

There is great danger in thinking that creation, or certain aspects of creation, is illusory: it leads directly to Docetism. Docetism was an early Gnostic heresy, and one of its primary doctrines was that the material universe is an illusion. The Docetists’ motive for this was that they believed the physical world was totally corrupted (i.e. fallen), and therefore only the spiritual realm could be trusted to reveal truth. Once they denied that creation could be trusted to reveal the truth about itself and hence about its Creator, they concluded that their actions in the physical world meant nothing, and they were thus free to sin and do whatever they wanted with their bodies. Moreover, since the physical realm was totally corrupted, God couldn’t have been incarnate in a real physical body. Jesus, therefore, was an apparition who didn’t really suffer on the cross, and who didn’t really die to atone for our sins.

Now obviously, young-earth proponents do not deny the doctrines of sin or of Jesus’ incarnation. They’re only claiming that a certain aspect of creation, its age, is an illusion. And their motivation for doing so is also very honorable: they are simply trying to be faithful to what they believe the Bible teaches—a motivation which would undoubtedly prevent them from accepting the Docetic doctrines mentioned, since these doctrines are so obviously contrary to the words of the Bible. Nevertheless, the logic is difficult to avoid: if we argue that one aspect of creation is illusory, then other aspects may be as well. This contradicts the biblical claim that creation is a trustworthy witness.{vi}

Objections and responses
Objection: This puts God in a box. God can create any way he wants to: why should we assume that it’s contrary to his inscrutable will to want to create, say, a car that looks rusted and dilapidated?

Response: God could certainly create in this way, but then if he told us that the car could be trusted to reveal the truth, he would be lying. If God created the universe with a false appearance of age, then how can we account for his telling us in Scripture that creation can be trusted to reveal his righteousness, faithfulness, and truthful character?

Objection: It’s impossible for God to create without some appearance of age. Any proposed “first state” of the universe can be assigned some kind of naturalistic history.

Response: This objection seems to assume that God’s miracles could actually occur by natural processes given enough time. Then, when God performs a miracle, he speeds up these natural processes. I simply disagree: while some miracles may be something that could occur naturally (the miracle then being in their timing; see Exod. 14:21-22), this is not the case for all of them. There are some miracles that could never occur naturally without divine intervention, so they wouldn’t represent a false appearance of age. Water in a jar will never turn into wine by itself no matter how much time you gave it. Natural processes will not bring a dead man back to life with a glorified body if you wait long enough.

It also seems to assume that the only reason histories have been assigned to various states or aspects of creation is out of naturalistic presuppositions rather than any actual scientific evidence. But again, this is not true. While naturalism does appear to be the only basis for affirming some things, this is not the case for theories such as (for example) star formation or the production of the heavier elements through several generations of stars. Creation bears witness to these processes.

Objection: According to this argument, God can’t speed up natural processes. He can only create by divine fiat.

Response: This argument does not say that God can’t speed up (or slow down, or change in any way he wants) the processes of nature at his discretion. It merely says that if he does, the objects acted upon would bear witness to his divine intervention. Remember, all of creation bears the mark of God’s handiwork.

Objection: The very nature of miracles is to make things different than what they appear to be.

Response: This is incorrect. Miracles do not change things while making them appear unchanged. Miracles change things while making them appear changed. Otherwise no one would notice them.

Objection: When challenged to perform miracles in order to prove his claims, Jesus often refrained from doing so. Therefore, the idea that God “covers up” his miracles is not unusual or unbiblical, and this opens the door to the appearance of age theory.

Response: First of all, Jesus didn’t perform negative miracles to cover up or counteract the positive ones he did perform. When he refused to give a further sign after multiplying the loaves and fish (Matt. 16:1-4), he didn’t make everyone who had eaten die of hunger just to make the point.

Secondly, I think this is a misunderstanding: I’m not distinguishing between God’s performance of a miracle and its continuing effect. Otherwise, we’re stuck in a bizarre scenario where God would essentially perform a miracle, and then immediately perform another one in order to make it look like he hadn’t performed the first one. Then he would tell us about the first miracle in Scripture, but not the second one, because he performed the second one in order to make sure that there’s no way for anyone to discover the first one other than in Scripture. But then when we recognize that the first miracle has no continuing effect in the world, we discover that God must have performed a second miracle (the one he didn’t want us to discover, remember) to cover up the first miracle. Again, I haven’t seen anyone suggest this, presumably because it’s completely ad hoc; but this objection would have to allow such a scenario.

Objection: God frequently uses deception to accomplish his goals. For example, he had the Hebrews wander in a seemingly random manner in order to trick Pharaoh into thinking that they were confused and could be easily defeated (Exod. 14:1-4).

Response: God never told Pharaoh that he would reveal himself through the route which the Hebrews would take upon their departure from Egypt. On the other hand, he has told us that he reveals himself through creation and its elements. Moreover, the Bible states very clearly that God does not, and cannot, deceive (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:13-20; Tit. 1:1-2).{vii}

Objection: The universe only has an “appearance of age” according to human methods of measurement. It’s these methods which deceive us, not the universe.

Response: This will be dealt with in greater detail in the next chapter. For now, I’ll just say that the Bible itself refers to the reliability and continuity of the laws of nature.

This is what the LORD says,
he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar --
the LORD Almighty is his name:
“Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the LORD,
“will the descendants of Israel ever cease
to be a nation before me.” (Jer. 31:35-36)

This is what the LORD says: “If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne.” … This is what the LORD says: “If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Jer. 33:20-26)

If the reliability of the “fixed laws of heaven and earth” are as certain and reliable as God’s promises, it seems evident that we can infer from their present operations to their past operations, and draw conclusions from them. This is all that’s necessary in order for us to affirm some of the methods which have dated the universe at billions of years. If, on the other hand, the fixed patterns of creation can’t be trusted to be consistent and unchanging, then, according to these passages, neither can God’s promises.

Notes:
{i} All other claims aside, this commits the “fallacy of composition,” where something that is true of the parts is assumed to be true of the whole. This can easily not be the case—if the parts are small, the whole is not necessarily small—so it must be demonstrated, not assumed, that the categories of the parts may apply to the whole.
{ii} Although this claim has been challenged; see C. John Collins (2003).
{iii} Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer (2001c), 203.
{iv} C. S. Lewis (1960), 140.
{v} Yes, there is such a thing.
{vi} Note that this doesn’t commit the fallacy of composition. I’m saying if one part is illusory, then, all things being equal, other parts (not the whole) may be as well. It should also be remembered in this context that the Bible claims that the whole of creation and every part of it testifies to God (Ps 8:1; 19:1; 104; 148).
{vii} Compare this with the Qur’an, which ascribes deception to God several times. For example, Muhammad was given a vision of the battle of Badr in which he and his forces outnumbered his enemies. When they got there, the opposite was the case, but they managed to win nevertheless. When Muhammad asked why he was shown a false vision, he was essentially told, “If God told you the truth, you wouldn’t have gone” (Sura 8:42-4, “al-Anfal”).

Chapter 14: General Revelation and Science

2008-12-12T21:47:00.027+01:00

A friend of mine invited me to come to a young-earth conference several years ago, and I accepted. The main speaker, at one point, was claiming that there was no animal death prior to the fall of humankind in the garden, and thus, prior to this event all of the animals were vegetarians.{i} He then said that some people have objected that animals with sharp teeth, which appear to be specifically designed for eating meat and not plants, were obviously not vegetarian. At this point, he turned to the audience and said, “But what does the fact that they had sharp teeth prove?” and the audience chanted back, “That they had sharp teeth!”

Apparently, the speaker was trying to imply that just because certain aspects of God’s creation give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose, we can’t infer from this that they actually were. I don’t think he meant this to apply beyond the example he gave, but of course there is nothing to prevent us from applying it elsewhere.

The validity of inference
The teleological (or design) argument states that there are things in creation which appear to have been designed, and infers from this that at least some of them were in fact designed; and that there is, therefore, a Designer. This is consistent with the biblical claim that we can infer from creation that there is a Creator (Ps. 19:1-4; Rom. 1:18-20). Indeed, the very concept of general revelation is the idea that the elements of creation give evidence that they originate from the hand of God.

As noted earlier, the fact that we can infer that creation reliably displays itself to come from God’s hand presupposes that it reliably displays itself, the former being a sub-category of the latter. From this, we infer the existence and action of God. In a similar fashion, the fact that we can validly make the inference from the universe’s order to an Orderer, presupposes that the process of inference is valid, the former again being a sub-category of the latter. The inference that the universe is created and ordered can be done reflectively, but sometimes it is something we do automatically. That’s the way God made our minds. This automatic inference can be countered to some degree by conscious effort, and this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today: the spirit of the age tells us that since some order can arise from purely natural processes, all order must do so. Our minds still automatically infer that the universe was designed, but we consciously refuse to take the next step and infer that there must be a Designer. We also try to retrain our minds to not make the automatic inference that the universe is designed.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that any and every inference we make is correct, much less that it is appropriate to infer an ordering agent for every case of order we encounter. Crystals form into geometrical shapes, draining water spontaneously forms into a vortex, etc.{ii} These are all natural processes. Certainly, God can and often does accomplish his goals through the natural processes he set up (Exod. 14:21), but in these cases he is doing it indirectly not directly; naturally not supernaturally. So the mere fact of order does not tell us whether God brought it about directly and supernaturally rather than indirectly and naturally. We have to look further to see if the natural processes God set up are capable of bringing about the order in question.

The point being that while revelation, be it special or general, is perspicuous, this doesn’t mean that we can be superficial in our examinations of them. There are plenty of passages in Scripture which superficially seem to contradict others.{iii} This simply means that we have to look closer to determine what exactly is being said. This applies equally to general revelation: we have to look closer at the evidence to determine which possibility is a more probable or plausible explanation.

The scientific method
Most of the earliest modern scientists were devout Christians who were seeking to honor God by learning more about his creation. It is unlikely that anything like the scientific enterprise could ever arise independently of a worldview like the Bible’s, simply because there is no reason for nature to behave in an ordered manner unless something which exists independently of it is ordering it. Otherwise, there is just no basis to assume that the law of gravity won’t spontaneously reverse itself or cease to operate at any given moment. If it is said that the unchanging character of creation is “just the way nature is or the way nature behaves,” we can respond that this is precisely the point: if there’s no entity exerting power over the universe to order it, there’s no reason to think that “the way nature is or the way nature behaves” will be the way that nature continues to be or behave. The fact that it’s behaved that way in the past does not provide us with one iota of evidence to think that it will continue to act that way for another moment—unless the same thing that caused it to behave in an ordered manner in the past is still ordering it today, and will continue to do so into the future.

Hugh Ross has made an even stronger claim. He argues that the modern scientific method itself was originally derived from the Bible. The general pattern by which scientists systematically observe creation is (according to Ross) the same pattern by which Scripture describes it.

Christian scholars throughout church history, from the early church fathers, to Renaissance naturalists, to Reformation theologians, to present-day evangelical scientists, philosophers, and theologians, have all noted that wherever the Bible describes a sequence of physical events, it always prefaces that description with statements of the frame(s) of reference (points of view) and the initial conditions and closes it with statements of the final conditions and conclusions about the physical events.{iv}

Ross gives a rough summary of the scientific method as follows:

1. Identify the frame(s) of reference or point(s) of view.
2. Determine the initial conditions.
3. Perform an experiment and observe the phenomenon, noting what takes place, when, where, and in what order.
4. Note the final conditions.
5. Form a hypothesis about the how and the why of the phenomenon.
6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments or observations.
7. Revise the hypothesis accordingly.{v}

Science and Theology
Theology is the systematic study of Scripture (special revelation). Science is the systematic study of creation (general revelation).{vi} Both are prone to error because both are the efforts of limited, fallen human beings to comprehend God’s revelation. However, both are also valid pursuits which are likely to lead to truth because God intends for us to understand them.

Since both Scripture and creation are revelations from the same God, and since God is truth, it follows that they will never contradict each other. If something in Isaiah seems to conflict with something in Galatians, this means that we have misread one or both of them. Similarly, if science and theology appear to conflict, this simply means that we have misinterpreted either the facts of creation or the words of the Bible or both.

This is true regardless of whether the one doing the interpreting is a Christian or not. The Bible says that, while non-Christians may not be able to understand God’s revelation in an experiential sense (1 Cor. 2:8, 14), they are still held accountable for their response to it, and so can still understand it on an intellectual level (Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:18-20). “The Holy Spirit does not give intelligibility to what is otherwise incomprehensible. Scripture is in general plain in and of itself. What the Spirit does is to grant understanding of the spiritual reality in and behind the historical material. This understanding involves both realization of what it is all about and also conviction of its truth.”{vii} When the individual is presented with the message of general revelation, he can either accept the message, or he can distort it by refusing to infer that creation has come from the hand of God.

Uniformitarianism?
It is often claimed that the scientific enterprise begins with the presupposition of “uniformitarianism”; that is, the belief that everything in nature has behaved uniformly since its creation, and that everything appeared slowly through uniform processes which are still going on today. The idea that God could act in the world through non-uniform processes, like miracles, is not allowed. If we start from the different presupposition that God has acted in a non-uniform way (since Scripture tells us he has) we arrive at radically different conclusions. Catastrophic events, such as Noah’s flood, occur which alter the “uniform progression” of creation. Therefore, we have no reason to infer an old universe.

I have a few responses to this: first, if “uniformitarianism” means that only slow, uniform processes are responsible for the state of the world, then scientists do not believe it. The claim of science is that the state of the world is the result of uniform processes combined with innumerable catastrophes—indeed, for the first billion years or so, the earth was constantly experiencing catastrophes, and it bears the marks of these events. However, these catastrophes didn’t alter the “fixed laws of heaven and earth” that God set up, and can be discovered by the systematic observation of creation.

On the other hand, if “uniformitarianism” means that science presupposes that the laws of creation are constant, then this is true; but this is a fact attested to in Scripture (Jer. 31:35-36; 33:20-26). As such, there is no reason to think that catastrophes (such as Noah’s flood) would alter God’s “fixed laws,” and strong reasons to think they would not. Moreover, as noted above, presupposing the constancy of the laws of nature itself presupposes an entity existing independently of nature which is sustaining it, so obviously this is not inconsistent with belief in God. Additionally, it’s simply taking God at his Word, when he says that the elements of creation reveal truth. So again, there’s no biblical, theological, or scientific reason to think that catastrophes would make the universe appear differently than it actually is.

Finally, the fact that God performs miracles at his discretion does not in any way allow us to posit that he has done so arbitrarily. In other words, we can’t assume that God has performed miracles beyond those he reveals to us. To do so would be ad hoc, and could be done to support just about any position.

Objections and responses
Objection: The Bible says that people have been so impacted by sin that they cannot help but distort the message of creation (Rom. 1:18-32).

Response: It also says that fallen human beings can’t understand the message of the Bible (1 Cor. 2:8, 14)—but this clearly means that they can’t understand it experientially, not that they can’t intellectually grasp what it says; they’re still liable for their response to it. There are plenty of Bible commentaries that provide excellent exegetical analyses which are written by authors who do not accept biblical inerrancy. They exegete what the text says brilliantly, but they qualify it by saying that they themselves don’t accept the message it conveys.

The doctrine of total (or pervasive) depravity means that no part of the human being is exempt from sin’s pollution. This includes the mind; there is a “noetic effect of sin.” However, it doesn’t follow from this that we can’t comprehend what God tells us, only that we won’t believe him. “This implies that natural theologians should be modest and open to criticism; it means that their efforts are not guaranteed success. It does not mean that their efforts are guaranteed to be failures.”{viii}

Objection: If nature behaves uniformly, there is no room left for miracles.

Response: This would only be true if the causal agent responsible for ordering the universe is unwilling or unable to perform miracles. Clearly, the Bible affirms that God acts both through the “fixed laws” he set up, as well as through direct action.

The philosophy which forbids you to make uniformity absolute is also the philosophy which offers you solid grounds for believing it to be general. … The alternative is really much worse. Try to make Nature absolute and you find that her uniformity is not even probable. By claiming too much, you get nothing. You get the deadlock, as in Hume. Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers.{ix}

Objection: Scientific knowledge is constantly changing. The scientific “facts” of a hundred years ago are radically different than the “facts” of today. There’s no reason to think that today’s scientific “facts” won’t be completely refuted by those a hundred years hence.

Response: This is another misunderstanding. The scientific facts of a hundred years ago have been refined, not overturned. Newtonian mechanics was true a hundred years ago, it’s true today, and it will be true a hundred years from now (unless Christ returns). Einstein’s relativity equations did not overthrow Newtonian mechanics, it refined it to account for certain domains of measurement.

If Newtonian mechanics is true, and we have a great deal of evidence to think it is, it leads to affirming a universe billions of years old. If relativity is true, and we have a great deal of evidence to think it is, it leads to affirming a universe billions of years old. Scientific knowledge is not in a constant state of flux, but is constantly growing more precise in its discoveries.

On a more practical level, many scientific discoveries have direct relevance in fields such as medicine and technology. If we really think these scientific discoveries will eventually be refuted, it’s hypocritical for us to trust modern technologies, or to go to doctors, accept their diagnoses, and follow their treatments. Conversely, our trust in modern technology and medicine indicates that we really do believe that the scientific premises underlying them are reliable.

Notes:
{i} I address this in chapters 6, 7, and 10.
{ii} Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers (1984).
{iii} See Gleason Archer (1982); Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (1997); John Haley (2003).
{iv} Hugh Ross (1998), 191.
{v} Ross (1998), 22.
{vi} These are obviously very crude definitions. Theology, for example, intersects many other disciplines, such as ethnology, history, sociology, etc.
{vii} Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1998).
{viii} C. Stephen Evans (1990), 67.
{ix} C. S. Lewis (1960), 110.

Chapter 15: Creation Ex Nihilo and the Big Bang: A Test Case

2008-12-12T21:46:00.025+01:00

The Big Bang as the creation event
In my experience, much of the reaction some Christians have against an old earth is based on the misunderstanding that the “Big Bang” is an idea which contradicts the concept of God creating the universe, and thus implies (or at least allows) atheism. For example, some have thought that the Big Bang theory maintains that there was a primeval “atom” or “egg” which had always existed, but then, for no readily apparent reason, chaotically exploded.

Now I don’t think there’s a single cosmologist in the world who would agree with this description. The Big Bang did not involve a “primeval atom” which always existed and then exploded; rather, the claim is that the universe is expanding outward (similar to a balloon being inflated) from a point of zero volume called a “singularity.” This singularity did not always exist; it represents the moment that matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time began to exist. And while this expansion is usually referred to as an “explosion,” this is only meant to describe the incredible force with which it took place. Insofar as this term implies chaos or disorder, it is entirely inappropriate—no scientist maintains that the Big Bang was random or chaotic. There are dozens of aspects of this event that had to be amazingly fine-tuned.

For example, the velocity with which the matter and energy created in the Big Bang burst outward had to be incredibly precise. This velocity was, in turn, governed by two factors: the universe’s mass density (essentially the amount of matter created) and space-energy density (the “stretchiness” of the space-time fabric). If the first characteristic was different by one part in 10⁶⁰, or the second characteristic by one part in 10¹²⁰, physical life would have been impossible anywhere at any time in the universe’s history.{i} Human intelligence isn’t able to produce anything even remotely this precise. There are dozens of similar examples of fine-tuning which are simply given in the Big Bang itself.{ii} Of course, this doesn’t mean that God performed all of his miracles at the beginning and then let the universe develop on its own: there are even more examples which have to take place throughout the history of the cosmos in order for life to be possible.{iii} God is actively involved with his creation.

In actuality, what the Big Bang theory maintains is that matter, energy, space, and time all sprang into existence together. When we apply the principle of causality (which science presupposes), we are led to an affirmation that something which exists independently of matter, energy, space, and time brought them into existence. This conforms with the biblical doctrine that the universe was created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) by a transcendent Creator. The Big Bang theory maintains that the universe expanded outward from a point of origin, and continues to expand outward today. This conforms with the numerous biblical statements that God “stretched” and “stretches out the heavens” (Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Isa. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Zech. 12:1). The fact that the Big Bang was essentially the most controlled and guided phenomenon that has ever occurred conforms with the biblical concept that the Creator of the universe is incredibly intelligent and powerful.

Thus, the Big Bang theory is not contrary to the biblical doctrine of creation but accords perfectly with it. What would we expect the creation of the universe to look like if not this? I think it’s tragic that a large portion of the Christian community has rejected the creation event which scientists have discovered merely because they think the timing’s off. “A young-earth interpretation of Scripture demands the rejection of what secular scholars acknowledge as the strongest evidence for the biblical God, evidence indicating a transcendent Cause of the universe and of exquisite design for physical life.”{iv}

The Cosmological Argument
Throughout Christian history, philosophers and theologians have offered the cosmological argument (really a family of arguments) to defend the thesis that the universe is contingent or dependent, and thus must rely on the existence of something other than itself for its own existence.{v} Some forms of the cosmological argument argue for the universe’s contingency by attempting to prove that the universe—matter, energy, space, and time—is finite. If time is finite, then it had a beginning, and must therefore have a timeless Cause in accordance with the biblical doctrine of creation. The Big Bang is commonly recognized as an empirical validation of this argument. The Big Bang theory claims that matter, energy, space, and time began to exist. Since a cause exists independently of its effects, the implications of this are that the causal agent responsible for the universe’s existence can’t be contained by any of these elements; that is, something which transcends matter, energy, space, and time created them. Since this Creator transcends matter and energy, it is immaterial; since it transcends space it is omnipresent; and since it transcends time, it is timeless (not to mention extremely powerful).

We can even go a step further: a mechanistic cause is one which produces its effect automatically. That is, if the cause is present, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the effect to take place are met; and since the necessary and sufficient conditions for the effect to take place are met, the effect takes place. A timeless mechanistic cause would produce its effect timelessly, since the necessary and sufficient conditions for its effect’s occurrence are timelessly present. But in the case under discussion, the effect (the universe) is not timelessly present, and yet must have a timeless cause, since time is part of the effect. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be mechanistic or automatic; it must be non-mechanistic. It must be an entity with the capacity of choosing to create the universe as a finite, temporal effect. And the ability to choose is an inherently mental act. The entity responsible for creating the universe must be a mind, a personal agent with free will. “For while a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions would either produce the effect from eternity or not at all, a personal being may freely choose to create at any time wholly apart from any distinguishing conditions of one moment from another. For it is the very function of will to distinguish like from like.”{vi} This precisely matches the biblical concept of God.

The Big Bang and Atheism
Isn’t the Big Bang consistent with atheism as well as Christianity, though? It’s difficult, if not impossible, to see how. Atheists tend to be somewhat flustered by Big Bang cosmology.{vii} In fact, the history of cosmology in the 20th century is largely the history of attempts to find a loophole to the Big Bang theory.{viii} The steady state theory held that matter is constantly popping into existence, and then being spread out. Once this was refuted, it was succeeded by oscillation models, which suggested that the universe is constantly experiencing periods of expansion followed by retraction, followed by expansion again. Once this was refuted, it was succeeded by vacuum fluctuation models, which argued that since energy in a quantum vacuum can be converted into virtual particles for a brief moment, perhaps the entire universe came into existence the same way. None of these positions ever had any scientific evidence in their favor; they posited unknown physical laws, and sometimes directly violated known physical laws. The only motivation for proposing them was to avoid having to acknowledge that the universe had a beginning, and that there is therefore a Creator—a motive which was often stated explicitly. At present, however, the scientific evidence has accumulated to the point where virtually all scientists in the relevant disciplines agree that the universe was created in a hot Big Bang event.

While these theories are sometimes still bandied about, today there are two primary responses to the claim that the Big Bang proves the existence of a Creator. The first of these is known as the “many worlds (or multiverse) hypothesis.” This is the claim that there is a trans-universe universe, which is constantly bringing sub-universes into existence, of which we are one. Given an infinite number of universes, one was bound to emerge with all of the necessary preconditions for life (note that any conception of creation could be explained away like this).

There are a few problems with this scenario: first, it doesn’t really refute the existence of God. The multiverse is perfectly compatible with the claim that God exists, and the God of the Bible in particular. Indeed, so far no one has been able to come up with a multiverse that wouldn’t have to have a beginning itself, and must be extremely fine-tuned. Second, this concept is just as metaphysical as that of creation ex nihilo, and so is not a “better” option for those who insist that “the universe is all there ever was or will be.”{ix} Third, Ockham’s razor (or the criterion of simplicity) militates against it. This is the idea that the simplest cause—simplest in a numerical sense—is the better option. This means that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. But the multiverse hypothesis has to posit an infinite number of universes in order to account for the existence of our universe. By contrast, the traditional concept of creation ex nihilo posits a single causal agent who brought the universe into existence.{x}

Another attempt atheists have made to deal with the scientific evidence for the Big Bang has been to deny that the principle of causality applies to the universe’s springing into existence.{xi} Again, note that this objection is equally applicable to any conception of creation, not just Big Bang models. Those who make this objection seem to be thinking that causality only applies to physical or temporal events, and so only applies to events within the universe. But this is incorrect: the principle of causality is derived from our basic intuition that something does not come from nothing, that being does not arise from non-being. These are not physical claims, they are metaphysical claims, and so apply to the creation of the universe and the beginning of time.

Now it’s one thing to argue that applying causality to the beginning of the universe creates some philosophical issues. But the alternative to this is that the universe just popped into existence without any cause. If we’re going to be skeptical of something, we should be skeptical of that. No one really believes that anything could begin to exist without a cause, much less something as colossal as the entire universe. Such a claim has absolutely no precedent in scientific or philosophical history.

Some have claimed that David Hume denied the principle of causality, but this is a misunderstanding. Hume argued that we can’t infer that because a cause produced a particular effect in the past, that it would produce the same effect in the future. This is not even remotely the same thing as denying that if something begins to exist, something else caused it. In other words, Hume argued that we can’t infer an effect from a cause. What’s being claimed here is that we can’t infer a cause from an effect. Hume himself wrote, “I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.”{xii}

Others have claimed that in quantum physics, vacuum fluctuations allow virtual particles to come into existence uncaused, but this is another misunderstanding:

For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. … The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.{xiii}

Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been claiming for literally millennia that the universe began to exist. The response of non-theists has been to deny that it began to exist, not to question the principle of causality. The only reason it’s being questioned now is because the Big Bang confronts us with a Creator. It is empirically established that the universe began to exist. How is it more plausible to think it just popped into existence without any cause than to think it was caused? Let me put this another way: the doctrine of creation out of nothing claims that the universe had an efficient cause, but no material cause—that is, it was not made out of some pre-existing “stuff.” These atheists are claiming that it had neither an efficient cause nor a material cause. Again, how is this more plausible? If this is the only option left open to those who don’t want to believe in God, the Christian clearly holds the intellectual high ground.

In fact, Hugh Ross has argued that the Big Bang not only leads us to a Creator, but specifically to the God of the Bible:

…all the data accumulated in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries tell us that a transcendent Creator must exist. For all the matter, energy, nine space dimensions, and even time, each suddenly and simultaneously came into being from some source beyond itself.

It is valid to refer to such a source, entity, or being as the Creator, for creating is defined as causing something—in this case everything in the universe—to come into existence. Matter, energy, space, and time are the effects He caused. Likewise, it is valid to refer to the Creator as transcendent, for the act of causing these effects must take place outside or independent of them.

Not only does science lead us to these conclusions, but so also does the Bible. It is the only holy book to do so.{xiv}

Objections and responses
Objection: The Big Bang theory is just that—a theory. It’s far from certain. In a few years it will probably be called “the Big Bust.”

Response: The Big Bang theory is derived from Einstein’s relativity equations; if the latter are true, so is the former. Relativity is one of the most proven and established principles in all of science.{xv} Therefore, the Big Bang is very certain. The only people who deny it are atheists and young-earth proponents, both of whom do so from ideological, rather than scientific, considerations.

Objection: The Big Bang theory is a naturalistic explanation of how the universe began to exist, and was formulated by secular scientists trying to refute the biblical doctrine of creation. Therefore, it doesn’t conform to the biblical doctrine of creation, and Christians shouldn’t accept it.

Response: This is not true. Scientists have fought against the Big Bang at every step since it’s discovery, specifically because it proves the existence of a transcendent Creator. This is even true of the scientists who did the discovering themselves.

At the end of the 18th century, Immanuel Kant, considered the father of modern cosmology, published his antinomies, the first of which argued against the validity of the cosmological argument.{xvi} Although the whole point of this antinomy was that both possibilities (that the universe began or that it’s eternal) are equally problematic, after this scientists presupposed that the universe was infinite and eternal.

But then in the early decades of the 20th century, Einstein came out with his relativity equations, and realized that they implied that all of the matter and energy in the universe is expanding outward from a point of zero volume, thus implying that the universe was created, and that there is therefore a Creator. He tried to avoid this conclusion, but after more and more evidence supported the creation event, he reluctantly conceded that his relativity equations proved the existence of what he called “a superior reasoning power.”{xvii}

Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist cosmologist, coined the phrase “the Big Bang” in an attempt to mock the idea of an ultimate beginning. He suggested instead that purely natural processes were producing (i.e. creating) matter and spreading it out. This was known as the “steady state theory,” and was eventually refuted as the evidence for the Big Bang became more and more indisputable. This was succeeded by oscillation models which suggested that the universe experiences cycles of expansion followed by contraction (kind of like a perpetually bouncing basketball) which was also discarded in favor of the Big Bang. After this came “Vacuum Fluctuation Models [which] did not outlive the decade of the 1980s.”{xviii}

When Stephen Hawking and his colleagues came out with the space-time theorem (which extended relativity to include space and time in addition to matter and energy), he realized that it meant that not only were matter and energy brought into existence, but the dimensions of space and time were as well. Since this obviously suggests a transcendent Creator precisely matching the God of the Bible, Hawking went to great lengths to avoid the conclusion that the universe must have a divine origin (although he strongly denies being an atheist). Nevertheless, he concedes that “it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”{xix} Virtually all of these attempts to avoid the Big Bang were made in the absence of any evidence in their favor. Many of the scientists who proposed these models stated plainly that their only reasons for suggesting them is to avoid the idea of a Creator.{xx}

However, as the evidence for the Big Bang has become overwhelming, more and more scientists are concluding that there must be a transcendent Cause of the universe and are looking at the various religions of the world to see if any of them agree with the testimony of creation.{xxi} Let’s not push them away.

Notes:
{i} Hugh Ross (2001), 51-3, 150-1.
{ii} Ross (2001), 145-67.
{iii} Ross (2001), 175-99.
{iv} Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer (2001c), 202.
{v} William Lane Craig (1980).
{vi} Craig (1979), 151; see also Craig (2002) and Richard Swinburne (1991), 32-48.
{vii} Ross (1991); Robert Jastrow (1978); Craig (1999a).
{viii} See Quentin Smith (1992); C. D. Broad (1955).
{ix} Carl Sagan (1993), 4.
{x} Craig (1990).
{xi} J. L. Mackie (1982), 93-5; Graham Oppy (1991); Adolf Grünbaum (1989); (1991); Smith (1988); (1992); (1994); (2000). Some of Smith’s essays were also published in Smith and Craig (1993). See also Wes Morriston (2000); (2002a); (2002b).
{xii} David Hume to John Stewart, in J. T. Grieg (1932), 187.
{xiii} Craig (1993a).
{xiv} Ross (2001), 108, italics added.
{xv} Ross (2001), 69-75, 99-108.
{xvi} Immannuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason. See also Craig (1979), 189-205.
{xvii} Lincoln Barnett (1948), 106. Einstein ultimately embraced Spinozan pantheism, in which God is an impersonal force.
{xviii} Craig (1999a).
{xix} Stephen Hawking (1988).
{xx} For a historical review of these developments, see Ross (1991), parts 1 and 2, and Craig (1999a).
{xxi} Ross (2001), 157-60, 217; Jastrow (1978); Fred Heeren (1997).

Chapter 16: The Least Problematic Explanation

2008-12-12T21:45:00.040+01:00

At this point, I would like to review what has been said thus far by looking at the difficulties which must be accepted in order to affirm both the day-age interpretation and the calendar-day interpretation. By “difficulties” I mean primarily biblical or theological problems which present, or seem to present, something that is ad hoc, or implausible (from a Christian perspective).

Day-Age Interpretation
Problem 1: The presence of animal pain and death before the fall of humankind. I’ve suggested two possible solutions to this:

a) As I’ve stated earlier, there’s really no biblical reason to think that animals and plants didn’t experience death and pain before the fall—only human beings didn’t. Virtually all of the biblical passages which describe death being introduced by the sin of Adam and Eve are limited to human beings by their context. In fact, Job 38:39-40 refers to God’s providence in the predator-prey relationship, and Ps. 104:21, 27-28 even does the same within the context of creation week, calling this carnivorous activity “good.” The Bible certainly draws a pretty sharp line between human beings and all other living creatures, so the difficulty of animals and plants dying is not a biblical or theological difficulty, but is largely the result of anthropomorphism, or thinking of animal death in human terms.

Nevertheless, some of us (myself included) have a great affinity for animals, and it’s very difficult for us to accept that animal suffering isn’t an actual bad thing, and thus is not a part of God’s good creation. When I was a kid I had a dog that was my best friend for a long time, and the idea that his experience of pain wasn’t actually evil goes against everything I felt at the time, and feel today. For many of us, animal abuse is a crime that is reminiscent of child abuse, in the sense that the victims in both cases are largely unable to defend themselves, and unable to understand why they are being hurt.{i} Moreover, if certain animals display the attributes of mind, will, and emotion (as Hugh Ross maintains of nephesh), it’s difficult to say that their suffering has no intrinsic significance. Whether we can accept that animal suffering has no intrinsic significance or existential import, and that they have no capacity to experience pain in the same way we do, will largely determine whether we can accept this scenario or not.

b) The other possibility is that the biblical statements to the effect that Satan was a sinner and murderer “from the beginning” (John 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8) means that he fell immediately upon being created. Since he was on the earth, and had access to the garden of Eden before Adam and Eve fell (Gen. 3:1-5), this allows us to postulate that he may have poisoned God’s good creation, and God created Eden as a sort of “sanctuary” for humanity. Thus animal suffering and death before the fall is accounted for.

The primary objection to this is that Gen. 1:31 seems to be saying that everything God created was in a state of “goodness” at the end of creation week. Thus, either Satan had already been created but hadn’t fallen, or he hadn’t been created yet. However, the Bible states that the angelic host witnessed creation (Job 38:4-7), and this would presumably include Satan. Similarly, to say that he hadn’t yet fallen by the time God finished creating the universe seems to directly contradict the statements in John 8:44 and 1 Jn. 3:8 that he had been bad “from the beginning.” However, Gen. 1:31 should probably be understood as referring to the physical world, since this is what Gen. 1 is concerned with describing. It may just mean that God reviewed his acts of creation and called them very good—not that everything was still in the same state at the end of creation week as it had been when it was created.

Problem 2: The fall of creation upon the fall of humankind. Again, I have two responses to this:

a) There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that when creation “fell,” it meant that it would no longer be a trustworthy witness to God and his creative power. In fact, all of the various scriptural statements to the effect that creation is a trustworthy witness were made to fallen human beings living in a fallen world, so we have good reason to think that creation’s witness is still trustworthy and reliable.

b) Moreover, when the Bible says that the ground would be “cursed” and will produce thorns and thistles to inhibit humankind’s harvesting (Gen. 3:17-19), this seems to merely refer to Adam and Eve being expelled from paradise, not that creation fell or that God created thorns and thistles at this point—an interpretation corroborated by the fact that God restricted his creative acts to the first six days of creation (Gen. 2:1-3). The other verses that state that creation is “groaning in the pangs of childbirth” (Rom. 8:22), are clearly anthropomorphisms, and don’t link this to Adam’s and Eve’s sin. This may still be a possible inference, but it’s not actually taught in the Bible. The former point shows that creation would bear witness to such an event, so if it does not so bear witness, we would have good grounds for rejecting such a connection.

Problem 3: The “appearance of age” of Adam and Eve. It’s easy to understand how the creation of Adam and Eve as adults could imply that they bore a false appearance of age. Nevertheless, as I’ve argued in chapter 13, this is a false inference. We don’t think that the cells or organs that made up their bodies had any kind of appearance of age. We recognize that, while they would have been adult-size, they would not have appeared as if they had experienced the wear and tear of having been functioning for several years. Rather, they would have appeared brand new—because they were brand new. It’s only on a superficial level that this argument sounds valid, so it can hardly be used to claim that God creates things to look differently than they are, much less to try and apply it to the universe as a whole. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out, the Bible very clearly, very consistently, and very adamantly states that nature and its elements are reliable and trustworthy witnesses to the God of truth.

Problem 4: Exod. 20:9-11. In this passage of the Ten Commandments, we are told to work six days and rest on the seventh, since God did the same thing. As I’ve argued in chapter 4, we have good biblical reasons to maintain that God didn’t work for six of humankind’s days and rest for one, but worked for six of God’s days and is resting for one. There is nothing in Exod. 20:9-11 to suggest this, however, and taken by itself and at face value I can certainly see why some people could understand it as implying that the days of God’s workweek were the same as ours. However, just because this passage doesn’t distinguish our days from God’s days doesn’t mean it’s identifying them. We have to take all of the scriptural evidence into consideration; and since Scripture tells us elsewhere that God’s Sabbath day is still occurring (Ps. 95; Heb. 4:1-11) and that God’s experience of time is radically dissimilar to our own (Ps. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8-9), any attempt to read such an identification between God’s and man’s days into this passage ultimately fails.

Problem 5: Gen. 1:5. I’ve argued pretty extensively in chapter 2 that, in Hebrew, the syntax and vocabulary of the phrase, “and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day,” is unique, and implies that the first day of creation (and by extension, days two through six as well) was not a 24-hour period. However, again, we don’t get this from a cursory reading. And here, even more than in Exod. 20:9-11, I can see how some people could understand it as saying that day one was a 24-hour period. Ultimately I think Gen. 1:5 is better explained by the day-age interpretation, but I’m very sympathetic to those who take it as defining the days of creation as 24-hour periods.

Calendar-day Interpretation
Problem 1: Gen. 1:5. The 24-hour day theory has virtually no capacity to explain the extremely unusual use of the Hebrew verb vayahi, nor the change in vocabulary, nor ending the days of creation at morning instead of evening in accordance with the ancient Hebrew calendar, nor the unusual characteristics of the phrase yom echad (day one). If the author wished to convey the idea that the days of creation were 24-hour periods, “he could surely have done it far more clearly and effectively in other words than in those which he selected.”{ii} It’s difficult to maintain that a passage should be understood in the usual, ordinary way when everything about it is decidedly unusual and out of the ordinary. The way Gen. 1 is written is probably the best way to delineate long periods of time in ancient Hebrew; conversely, if they were meant to be understood as 24-hour periods, this could have been communicated more clearly.

Problem 2: Gen. 1:14. The fact that the whole concept of the calendar day is specifically introduced on the fourth day of creation makes it very difficult to maintain that the first three days should be understood as calendar days. The usual response is that the elements of a calendar day are introduced on day one in verse 5, and that the light was God’s shekinah glory. But this doesn’t really address the problem: verse 5 identifies light and darkness as phenomena, but not as periods of time, much less assigning them their specific calendrical roles. It is sometimes light (or day) on the earth’s surface, and it is sometimes dark (or night) on the earth’s surface. But the fact that verse 14 specifically states that the sun and moon were to mark days and seasons and years implies that days and seasons and years had not been markable as the elements of the calendar prior to this.

As for the source of light, this is a complete red herring. Regardless of whether the light was God’s shekinah glory, or whether it was from the sun which had been created “in the beginning,” but couldn’t yet be seen from the earth’s surface, the fact that calendar days are not established until the fourth day strongly implies that the days of creation were not intended to be understood as referring to calendar days.

Problem 3: Day six. The various attempts I’ve seen to try to squeeze all the events of the sixth day of creation into the daylight part of a 24-hour period are as follows:

a) God placed Adam in the garden of Eden to work, but then had him name the animals before he had a chance to start. However, I argued in chapter 3 that the syntax and context suggests that Adam did work in the garden before God gave him the task of naming the animals. And even if we ignore this, it’s only a partial solution: it still doesn’t give us enough time to squeeze the naming of the animals into the daylight part of a calendar day.

b) Adam only had to name several animals. There are some limits we can place on how many animals Adam had to name (he probably only had to name the animals in the garden), but to suggest that there were only a handful goes far beyond what the text says. The account of Adam naming the animals is meant to explain to the original audience how the diversity of animals with which they were familiar came to have the names by which they were known. We have every reason to think that the number of animals Adam had to name was at least in the hundreds, if not the thousands.

c) Adam named the animals at super-human speed. This suggestion has no support from Scripture and is totally ad hoc.

Problem 4: Day seven. This is an almost insuperable obstacle for the calendar-day theory. The Bible seems to state explicitly that God’s Sabbath rest is still occurring, and there’s no reason to think that his Sabbath rest should be distinguished from his Sabbath day. This does not imperil the commandment to honor the Sabbath as God did, as many calendar-day proponents claim, since this simply means we are to honor our Sabbath as God is honoring his. Nor can it be maintained that the biblical statements to the effect that we should strive to enter God’s rest are referring to something similar to, but other than, God’s Sabbath rest: the Bible explicitly states that the rest believers enter is identical, not similar, to God’s Sabbath rest. If the statement was simply that we would enter rest as God did, that would be one thing, but we are specifically told that we enter God’s rest, and this is then referred to as the seventh day of creation (Heb. 4:3-4). Thus, the seventh day is not a 24-hour period, but a long period of time that is still continuing today.

Problem 5: The denial that God’s creation is a reliable witness. I’ve seen this done several ways.

a) The universe was significantly altered when Adam and Eve fell. I’ve dealt with this above, and the primary point to make would just be that Scripture clearly teaches—after the fall—that creation is a trustworthy witness. Thus, if we’re going to be biblically responsible, we simply can’t reject what creation tells us, and this would include its age.

b) God creates things with a false appearance of age. This objection just flies in the face of all the Scripture passages that say that creation is a reliable witness, and the only arguments given in its favor (such as that by creating Adam and Eve as adults, God created them with a false appearance of age) are superficial and invalid. Moreover, this argument ascribes deception to God, something that the Bible-believing Christian simply cannot accept. Many young-earth proponents denounce those who think that animal death may have occurred before the fall of humankind because it would ascribe cruelty to God and thus impugn his character. Yet at the same time they maintain that while God tells us that we can trust what the universe seems to say, he makes it appear differently than it really is. This is simply hypocritical. To imply that God is dishonest is not a very safe thing to do.

c) The testimony of creation must be interpreted through the lens of special revelation (the Bible) before it can validly testify to anything. Like the previous objection, this just flies in the face of the biblical text: as argued in chapter 12, the Bible states clearly that those who have no access to any other sort of revelation from God have still been given a trustworthy, reliable, and understandable revelation from him—namely the created world—and God holds them accountable for whether they accept this testimony (Rom. 1:18-20).

d) God’s creation week doesn’t have anything to do with the modern world, and hence the universe looks as if it didn’t happen. I only addressed this briefly at the beginning of chapter 7. The point made here is that Gen. 1 does not describe the creation of the world we experience, but a lost world which was completely destroyed by the flood. Moreover, there is a wall separating this world and these events from the modern world, and we can never see over this wall without the aid of Scripture. I would, again, simply appeal to the many and various passages written after the fall, which claim that creation is a reliable witness and the fact that there are no passages which describe such a wall of separation. The text of Gen. 1 is obviously meant to answer questions of where the various elements of the world that we experience, including ourselves, came from.

e) A flat-out denial of the doctrine of general revelation. For example, one young-earth creationist book argues that the first half of Ps. 19 (“The heavens declare the glory of God…”) is actually about pagan worship of the zodiac!{iii} When you have to resort to eisegesis like this, your theological system is in big trouble.

The rejection of the doctrine of general revelation is often framed as an attempt to defend biblical authority by rejecting any sort of extra-biblical information which supposedly conflicts with it. In order for extra-biblical information to be justifiably ignored, it can’t be considered to be revelation from God. However, nearly all young-earth ministries defend their positions by means of the canopy theory—a concept that is lifted indiscriminately from Ellen White’s visions which played a large role in early Seventh-Day Adventism! This is difficult to reconcile with the claim that they are the guardians of biblical authority.

Problem 6: Strange bedfellows. In order to defend their interpretation of Scripture, young-earth advocates have to embrace positions of questionable provenance and authority.

a) Seventh-Day Adventism. The concept of a water canopy which surrounded the earth, and which collapsed to cause the flood, which in turn caused all of the geological features of the modern world is not based on the Bible or science but on the visions of Ellen White. These visions formed much of the theology for Seventh-Day Adventism, which was, at the very least, on the fringes of Christianity until recently. As such, it is hypocritical for young-earth advocates to accept this view while condemning any acceptance of science that refutes it as unbiblical.

b) Docetism/Gnosticism. By claiming that the universe appears differently than it actually is, young-earth advocates are agreeing with one of the earliest Christian heresies that the physical world is completely fallen and unreliable. The Docetists used this to deny the reality of sin and Christ’s atoning death, and the Apostle John argued against them by emphasizing that Jesus came in the flesh (John 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1-4; 2 Jn. 7). Of course, young-earth advocates only use the claim that the physical world is unreliable in order to argue that one aspect of creation is an illusion, namely its age, so they’re obviously not in the same category as the Docetists. The point, rather, is twofold: first, it goes against the Bible’s claim that all of creation, not just some of it, is a trustworthy revelation from God. Second, this is a slippery slope: if one part of creation is untrustworthy, other parts may be as well.

c) Post-modernism. In order to defend their interpretation of creation as having the same value as others, young-earth advocates have to say that the facts can’t speak for themselves, but have to be interpreted by a worldview. This is exactly the claim of post-modernists, that there are no facts, only interpretations. This is not only self-contradictory (is it a fact that there are no facts?), it is fundamentally a denial that there is any actual, objective truth, something that Christians simply should not accept. Were this the case it would mean that Christianity is not uniquely true and it does not uniquely account for the facts better than any other worldview. Ironically, for these very reasons, most young-earth advocates that I’ve encountered are very hostile to post-modernism.

d) Super-efficient macro-evolution. I’m sure most young-earth advocates would be shocked to discover that some of their most vocal proponents actually affirm macro-evolution. Nevertheless, such an affirmation is necessary if one is going to consistently maintain that there were no carnivorous animals before the fall, or that the millions of species alive today are descended from the few thousand that Noah took on board the ark.{iv} Regarding the former, there are only three options: either God created the carnivorous animals along with every other living specie during creation week; God created them after Adam and Eve sinned; or, they evolved from the animals God did create. As stated earlier, the biblical evidence militates strongly against God creating new types of life after the six days of creation, so the only way to avoid God creating carnivorous animals during creation week is to affirm the third option, a macro-evolution that works extremely quickly and efficiently.

Some young-earth proponents have conceded that God created carnivorous animals with all of their attributes, but insist that they didn’t engage in carnivorous activity and were vegetarian. But, of course, this fails since many carnivorous animals couldn’t have survived on a vegetarian diet. Moreover, are we really supposed to believe that God created animals as carnivores, but didn’t let them engage in carnivorous activity? The teleological argument claims that since some things appear to have been created for a purpose, we can infer that some of them at least were created for a purpose. Young-earth advocates use this to argue that living creatures were created for purpose. Yet if the carnivores only “looked” like carnivores but really weren’t, then their application of the teleological argument in the realm of biology fails.

As for the flood, even young-earth advocates acknowledge that the number of animal pairs the ark could have housed is in the tens of thousands at the most. When we add the fact that the seven people on board the ark had to feed, care for, and clean up after them, the number drops down to the thousands, and possibly the hundreds. Yet there are several million species alive on the earth today, and we have evidence that these species were in their present forms immediately after a young-earth dating of the flood. Thus, in order to argue that all of these species are descended from those that Noah took on board the ark, young-earth advocates have to claim that only representatives of general types, not species, were on board. So if tens of thousands of animal pairs were saved on the ark, and several million species were alive immediately afterward, it means that on average each pair on the ark multiplied into about a hundred distinct species within an absurdly short amount of time. And again, that’s being generous; if the number of animal pairs on board was in the thousands or hundreds, each pair would have had to multiply itself into a thousand or ten thousand species on average.

Given this, it’s no wonder young-earth advocates are so adamant against the possibility of an old earth. With their views on the efficiency and rapidity of evolution, if the earth and universe were more than a few thousand years old, pretty much anything could have happened by natural processes.

Conclusion
These considerations lead me to accept the day-age interpretation over the calendar-day interpretation. I’m not saying that the latter is impossible, but that it is more ad hoc, has less explanatory power, and is less likely to be true than the former. However, it must be remembered that some of the holiest people throughout history believed in a young earth, and it did not hinder their walk with the Lord in any way. This issue is only significant insofar as it affects our evangelistic efforts, and our unity as the body of Christ.

Notes:
{i} See, for example, George Steiner as quoted in Os Guinness (2003), 102.
{ii} Henry Morris (1981), 54.
{iii} James B. Jordan (1999).
{iv} Hugh Ross (2004), 121-9; Greg Moore (2004); see also the references in note {xi} in chapter 10.

Conclusion

2008-12-12T21:44:00.027+01:00

The warfare between science and religion
Let me pull together some of the threads presented thus far. I’ve pointed to a few examples of “conflicts” between Christianity and science that ultimately amount to propaganda. Many people think that religious beliefs have been refuted by modern scientific discoveries. Belief that the human individual has an intrinsic value and worth, for example, has supposedly been refuted by scientific discoveries that the universe is incomprehensibly huge, and that the earth is not at its center. Never mind why the size of the universe or our geographical location therein would have any bearing on our significance.{i} I further pointed out that this perception of conflict is not merely mistaken, and not merely a misunderstanding, but is essentially a propaganda campaign of disinformation.

This meta-narrative of a conflict between science and Christianity has many results in western society and culture. For example, the Jesus Seminar based their presupposition that God can’t perform miracles on the discovery of Copernicus and Galileo that the earth goes around the sun rather than vice-versa.

The contemporary religious controversy, epitomized in the Scopes trial and the continuing clamor for creationism as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution, turns on whether the worldview reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. Jesus figures prominently in this debate. The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens.{ii}

Brazen words for people who refuse to look through Hubble’s telescope (or the Hubble telescope for that matter).

I also pointed out that Christians often respond to these attacks by embracing the position that its critics denounce. When we are told that our faith leads to absurd scientific conclusions, some feel it necessary to accept the absurd conclusions. Thus, the claim, invented in the 19th century, that people thought the earth was flat before Columbus’s voyages spurred some Christians to argue that the Bible actually teaches a flat earth, and to produce reams of scientific evidences defending it.

The young-earth movement
Part of my motivation for writing this book is that I believe the focus on young-earth creationism is another attempt by the secular world to justify disregarding Christianity. And just as some Christians have bought into the flat earth and geocentrism, some have made a young earth a central point in their concept of Christianity.

Often, when I question those who believe that the days of creation were calendar days, they’ll say something like, “Well, that’s what the Bible says.” Usually, they’ll refer to Gen. 1, particularly verse 5, and say “You don’t think that sounds like normal days?” My response to this is to say, “I certainly think it does—in English.” Then I’ll go over some of the aspects of Hebrew that bear on the day-age interpretation, such as how the ancient Hebrew vocabulary was much smaller than modern English, and that words therefore had broader semantic ranges; that understanding yom as a long period of time qualifies as a literal definition of the Hebrew term; that there is a discontinuity in Gen. 1:5 which is not as evident in English as it is in Hebrew, etc. Then I’ll more directly refer to some of the biblical arguments that I’ve presented in this book, such as the nature of day six or seven. This isn’t to make them feel bad or to challenge them; it’s just to get them to think about whether the calendar-day interpretation is as infallible as they think.

As I’ve already stated, the vast majority of young-earth proponents hold their views because they believe the Word of God obligates them to do so. Many have invested time and personal resources into promoting young-earth creationism. If we think they are misguided in doing so, we must always keep at the front of our minds that their actions are done out of a devotion to God and his Word. Put yourself in their place: they have made sacrifices in order to honor God and further his Kingdom, and are now being told that their efforts were not only misguided, but counter-productive. This would be difficult for anyone to accept, but for them, it also involves the idea that they were mistaken while faithfully walking with Christ. Why would God allow them to be mistaken, when he was truly with them, and all they wanted to do is serve and glorify him?

But all theological issues within orthodoxy face this problem, with good and godly people on all sides. Many Christian scholars have devoted their lives to promoting a particular take on a certain theological issue; many Christian laymen have devoted their time, effort, and money into supporting a ministry that takes a particular theological stance. But they could still be wrong. Calvinists and Arminians aren’t both right. Or consider the various positions on eschatology, the doctrine of end times. Plenty of people have devoted a great deal of time and effort into promoting a pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation rapture, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism, a-millenialism, dispensationalism, etc. Since all of these positions can’t be true, are we justified in concluding that those who end up being incorrect are not faithfully walking with Christ, or that Christ is not with them? Of course not.

The point of all this is that just because God infallibly speaks, it does not mean that we infallibly hear. Devotion to God and his Word must be balanced with humility, and the recognition that we make mistakes: just because God is infallible, it does not follow that we can’t misunderstand him. Dallas Willard makes this point beautifully: “One great cause of confusion is that people make infallibility a condition of hearing God. It helps, I believe and hope, to understand that God’s word is communication and that communication occurs constantly in contexts where infallibility is completely out of the question. The infallibility of the speaker—as is the case when God is the speaker—does not and need not guarantee infallibility of the hearer.”{iii}

Leaders of the young-earth movement
Unfortunately, many leaders of the young-earth movement resolutely refuse to accept this, and represent any disagreement with them as disagreement with God. Beneath the claim that they hold their beliefs because of their submission to God and his Word is a complete unwillingness to consider the possibility that they—not God—could have made a mistake. This is not an act of humility. Often, when referring to Christians who disagree with them, they insert some qualifier to the extent that such people claim to be Christians; which of course implies that they may not be.

At the beginning of this book, I argued that there are some parallels between many leaders (not all) of young-earth creationism and those of flat-earth creationism. I think it’s important to point out that the similarities between them run deep. Both claim that their interpretation of the Bible is God’s Word itself, and hence to deny their view is to deny inerrancy and pits man against God. Both claim that the denial of their interpretation makes one a “compromiser,” and leads to the denial of central doctrines. Both claim that their positions are the traditional ones, and that the denial of their interpretation is a purely recent phenomenon. Both claim that the denial of their interpretation makes God into an incompetent Creator. Both claim that the denial of their interpretation leads to apostasy, immorality, and licentiousness. And on it goes.{iv}

Additionally, many leaders (and again, not all) of the young-earth movement explicate their position with the same bluster one finds in flat-earth creationist literature, characterized by hostility, an obnoxious self-righteousness, and a feigned overconfidence which is used to try to bully their audience into acquiescence. Of course, every position has its adherents that resort to such tactics, as well as those that don’t. However, for some positions, this is the modus operandi, and this certainly seems to be the case for the majority of young-earth literature. This can easily be verified by simply reading young-earth literature for oneself to see whether it engages in such methods.

The main point in this is that manipulative tactics such as these are not the way of Christ in whom we are to let our “yes” be yes and our “no” be no (Mt. 6:37; Jms. 5:12). When we engage in such behavior

We are making use of people, trying to bypass their understanding and judgment to trigger their will and possess them for our purposes. Whatever consent they give to us will be uninformed because we have short-circuited their understanding of what is going on. … As God’s free creatures, people are to be left to make their decisions without coercion or manipulation. Hence, “let your affirmation be just an affirmation,” a yes, and your denial be just a denial, a no. Anything more than this “comes from evil”—the evil intent to get one’s way by verbal manipulation of the thoughts and choices of others.

Kingdom rightness respects the soul need of human beings to make their judgments and decisions solely from what they have concluded is best. It is a vital, a biological need. We do not thrive, nor does our character develop well, when this need is not respected, and this thwarts the purpose of God in our creation.{v}

We must always remember that our fallen nature leads us into self-justification, where we use any reason or excuse to avoid having to admit that we are in error.{vi} This is true for everyone, but is especially dangerous for the Christian, since we have God in our arsenal of excuses. It is all too easy to use God as a pretext to be disrespectful or to express hatred for or contrived amusement at those who disagree with us. But Christ calls upon us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15), to show mercy towards those who doubt (Jude 22), and to give our reasons for our faith with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15; cf. 2 Tim. 2:24-26). If our words do not express love as well as truth, we are not revealing God.{vii}

Such rhetoric is, of course, not limited to flat and young-earth creationism: anyone familiar with the sophistry of atheist and anti-Christian literature, for example, will immediately recognize that it also has precisely these same qualities. I submit that when one tries to marginalize or demonize his opponents, regardless of whether it is in the defense of a flat earth, a young earth, atheism, or whatever, it tends to indicate an inability to defend one’s position more than anything else.

The evidence for a flat earth
In fact, I would argue that the proposed biblical evidence for a flat earth is much more convincing than the proposed biblical evidence for a young earth. After all, the Bible refers to the “ends of the earth” plenty of times, and even to the “four corners of the earth.” Likewise, when Satan tempted Jesus by bringing him to the top of a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5), a flat earth could be implied, since maybe Satan brought him up there not to show him a vision, but so that he could see far enough to actually view “all the kingdoms of the world.” Similarly, the fact that, upon Christ’s return, all of the nations of the world will simultaneously see “the sign of the Son of Man” in the sky and “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky” (Matt. 24:30), could imply a flat earth, since how could people on opposite sides of a globe see the same thing? Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying that the Bible actually teaches a flat earth.{viii} I’m just saying that it’s at least as plausible to interpret the Bible this way as it is to interpret it as teaching a young earth. After all, the only real biblical evidence for a young earth is that the days of creation are called “days.”

Some have even argued that the proffered scientific evidence for “zetetic astronomy,” the scientific framework of flat-earth creationism, seems comparable to that for “scientific creationism” or “flood geology.”{ix} For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, Lady Elizabeth Blount, a popular flat-earth proponent of the time, financed an experiment: she went to the Bedford Canal to demonstrate that the water’s surface was not curved (as should be the case if the earth is round), but flat.

She hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer’s, who in May 1904 went up to the Bedford Level, equipped with the firm’s latest Photo-Telescopic Camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white, calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. It was about 15 feet square, and had been made for her by some ladies who lived nearby. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. This was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded:

I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface.

The photograph was published in The Earth and other journals, and Lady Blount enjoyed her triumph. A long correspondence took place in the popular science magazine, English Mechanic, in which the orthodox tried to explain away the photograph as something to do with “refraction” or “mirages”, while Lady Blount responded voluminously in prose, verse, songs and quotations from the Bible. She reminded readers of Richard Proctor’s statement in one of his authoritative works on astronomy: “If with the eye a few inches above the surface of the Bedford Canal, an object close to the water, six miles distant from the observer can be seen, then manifestly there would be something wrong with the accepted theory.” That test had now been made, and the accepted theory had come out of it badly. On the strength of it Lady Blount proclaimed that the earth’s flatness had been scientifically proved.{x}

The author, writing in 1984, then concludes that “There is obviously a need for further experiments at the Old Bedford Level,” which strongly suggests that this test has never been refuted.

In a similar vein, as mentioned earlier, some of the evidence Samuel Rowbotham (or “Parallax”) employed to argue for a flat earth were lighthouses that could be seen from further away than they should if the surface of the earth is curved. All of this evidence was correctly annotated from genuine reference works, and some of these lighthouses have since been destroyed, making refutation difficult, if not impossible.{xi} But of course it does not follow from any of this that the earth is actually flat. Thus, a 19th century Christian critic wrote, “The proper conclusion from the above facts is, that either there is a misprint in the [reference] book at these places, or that the localities where these lighthouses are situated possess some peculiarities which, if known, would account for these deviations. For it is a monstrous assertion which ‘Parallax’ makes … that one single instance, like the one he mentions, entirely destroys the doctrine of the earth’s rotundity.”{xii} Such a conclusion is equally appropriate for Lady Blount’s experiment.

The point
I realize drawing such parallels must be offensive to young-earth proponents, and I apologize for this. It is not my intention to insult anyone, but I know it’s hard not to feel insulted when a belief you hold dear, a belief that you associate with the Bible, and see as a linchpin establishing a larger context, is compared to another belief that is irrational in the extreme. All I can say is that I believe these parallels and the points they make are valid and significant. As Augustine wrote over 1,500 years ago,

There is knowledge to be had, after all, about the earth, about the sky, about the other elements of this world, about the movements and revolutions or even the magnitude and distances of the constellations, about the predictable eclipses of moon and sun, about the cycles of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, fruits, stones and everything else of this kind. And it frequently happens that even non-Christians will have knowledge of this sort in a way that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments. Now it is quite disgraceful and disastrous, something to be on one’s guard against at all costs, that they should ever hear Christians spouting what they claim our Christian literature has to say on these topics, and talking such nonsense that they can scarcely contain their laughter when they see them to be toto caelo, as the saying goes, wide of the mark. And what is so vexing is not that misguided people should be laughed at, as that our authors should be assumed by outsiders to have held such views and, to the great detriment of those about whose salvation we are so concerned, should be written off and consigned to the waste paper basket as so many ignoramuses.

Whenever, you see, they catch out some members of the Christian community making mistakes on a subject which they know inside out, and defending their hollow opinions on the authority of our books, on what grounds are they going to trust those books on the resurrection of the dead and the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they suppose they include any number of mistakes and fallacies on matters which they themselves have been able to master either by experiment or by the surest of calculations? It is impossible to say what trouble and grief such rash, self-assured know-alls cause the more cautious and experienced brothers and sisters. Whenever they find themselves challenged and taken to task for some shaky and false theory of theirs by people who do not recognize the authority of our books, they try to defend what they have aired with the most frivolous temerity and patent falsehood by bringing forward these same sacred books to justify it. Or they even quote from memory many things said in them which they imagine will provide them with valid evidence, not understanding either what they are saying, or the matters on which they are asserting themselves (1 Tim. 1:7).{xiii}

Notes:
{i} I address the former in chapter 10. On the latter, see Dennis Danielson (2001); (2003).
{ii} Robert W. Funk, et al. (1993), 2.
{iii} Dallas Willard (1999), 196.
{iv} I originally had quotes from both young-earth and flat-earth literature to illustrate each of these points, but upon reflection decided it was gratuitous, and not to include them here.
{v} Willard (1998).
{vi} For a painful example, see Andre Kolé and Jerry MacGregor (1998), 71-2.
{vii} See Willard (1998), 217-31; (2002), 237-9; Mark D. Roberts (2003), 101-15.
{viii} I address some of the claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth in the Introduction.
{ix} Please note that the claim here is the equation of these two systems, not necessarily the equation of a flat earth with a young earth. Some, indeed, have claimed that it’s more scientifically plausible to believe that the earth is flat than to believe that it is only several thousand years old. For example, Nobel laureate scientist Murray Gell-Mann made this precise claim in his testimony before the United States Supreme Court in 1987. A similar claim is made in Robert J. Schadewald (1992). Personally, I find it difficult to take such claims seriously.
{x} John Michell (1984), 29-30.
{xi} Schadewald (1992).
{xii} M. R. Bresher (1868).
{xiii} Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1:39.