| This is part one of a six-part series examining supposed evidences for a global flood that have recently appeared on the Answers in Genesis web site. |
| Part one — This article. |
| Part two examines the YEC argument that sedimentary rocks that contain dense accumulations of fossils can best be described by the action of Noah’s Flood. |
| Part three examines the YEC perception that transcontinental rock layers, such as the sandstone layer that is found at the base of the Paleozoic sediments throughout much of North America, can best be explained by Noah’s flood. |
| Part four looks at the YEC claim that long-distance transport of sand grains can only be explained by Noah’s flood. |
| Part five looks at unconformities and the boundaries between geological formations. The young-Earth crowd claims that there is no evidence for weathering and erosion between layers, which is simply not true. |
| Part six looks at whether or not layers must be soft rather than lithified in order to fold. Laboratory and field evidence indicate that solid rocks really can fold. |
A few weeks ago, I was pointed to some recently-published articles by young-Earth creationist geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling on the Answers in Genesis (AiG) web site. These make up a series called “Six main geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood.”
The people at AiG are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I share their love for the Lord Jesus Christ, their respect for the Bible as the Word of God, and their desire to see people come to faith in Christ. However, I view their arguments for a young Earth and geological catastrophism as unnecessary Biblically, really bad apologetics, and a serious obstacle to the evangelism of scientists.
Unfortunately, few people in our churches or Christian education system have the geological background to critically analyze these arguments. The result is that people read articles like these from AiG, find them to be rather impressive, and believe that these present sound arguments in defense of the Bible. The opposite, however, is true. A vast majority of Christian geologists find the arguments for a young-Earth and the geologic work of the Flood to be untenable. It is my strong opinion that the young-Earth arguments of organizations like AiG have no place in our churches and Christian education system.
Let’s take a look at the first of Snelling’s “Six main geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood.”
Flood Evidence Number One: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Snelling begins this article with an overview of the vertical distribution of marine fossil-bearing sediments. Marine fossils are found throughout the geologic column in places like the Grand Canyon, at elevations approaching 8000 feet (2400 m) above sea level, and even at the summit of Mt. Everest (29029 ft, 8848 m).
Most young-Earth creationists acknowledge that the marine fossils at the top of Mt. Everest were deposited at a lower elevation and then uplifted through mountain-building processes, so I’m not sure what Snelling’s point is in bringing this up. The standard geological model of deposition and uplift works perfectly fine for explaining how marine fossils ended up at the top of many mountain ranges.
In his article, Snelling brings up fossils of organisms called crinoids:
Other rock layers exposed in Grand Canyon also contain large numbers of marine fossils. The best example is the Redwall Limestone, which commonly contains fossil brachiopods (a clam-like organism), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (types of clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites, cephalopods, and even fish teeth.
These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.
His description of the Redwall Limestone is mostly correct. The Redwall Limestone is part of a layer of Mississipian age that covers much of western North America, from Canada down to Mexico. This layer has different names in different regions, such as the Leadville Formation in Colorado and the Rundle Group at Banff in Canada. These can be traced as a continuous layer either in outcrop on the surface, or in the subsurface through oil and gas wells or by seismic methods. I have not observed the Redwall Limestone in Arizona, but am familiar with its equivalent in Montana, the Madison Group. The Madison Group consists mostly of marine limestone, and contains many quadrillions of crinoid stem fragments (I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and came up with about 1016 stem fragments in a 500 x 500 km area; I know I’ve seen this figured out somewhere else before), as well as some beautifully preserved complete crinoid organisms.
In the young-Earth creationist scenario, these quadrillions of crinoid columnals had to be lying in the shallow sea before the flood, be ripped up in the early stages of the flood, be held together as a coherent package for a while during the flood with no loss or mixing with other units while Cambrian through Devonian sediments were deposited, and then deposited on the seafloor in the middle of the flood. Some of the fragile crinoid organisms would have had to stay together through all of this without disarticulating, such as the crinoid fossils illustrated to the right.
According to standard geological explanations, parts of the continents have been covered by shallow marine waters at numerous times throughout geologic history. Over time, in the absence of tectonic forces leading to mountain-building, continents are worn down to relatively flat surfaces. When sea level has risen (sometimes due to varying rates of mid-ocean ridge volcanism), these eroded continents became covered by shallow sea water. It was in one of these times that the Mississippian marine limestones were deposited on the continents. In places within these limestones, small-scale ecological distribution of organisms is preserved in the rocks (e.g. “Waulsortian mounds“, which are in some ways similar to coral reefs, but without a reef-building organism such as corals).
Crinoids are not really abundant in today’s oceans, but they are common enough for us to study them in their natural habitats. When they die, the stems often break up into small cylindrical segments, and the calcium carbonate portion of the stem can be preserved on the sea floor. Over time the stem fragments can accumulate to a greater depth. Snelling’s statement that it would require some sort of catastrophe to form beds of crinoid stem fragments is completely without a basis. A natural analog in the modern ocean can explain these layers easily.
To summarize:
- It is not necessary to posit a global flood to explain marine fossils at high elevations. Snelling knows this.
- Catastrophism cannot explain the fossil assemblage of Mississippian limestones such as the Redwall. It is difficult to see how this mixture of fossils (which contains more than just crinoids, as Snelling acknowledges) could have stayed together as a coherent package in a global flood.
- Local ecological zones are preserved at places in Mississippian limestones. Were these mounds carried by the flood and then deposited gently on the surface without breaking apart? I don’t think so.
The young-Earth catastrophist arguments of AiG might sound good to Christians without a strong science background, but this whole system simply does not work, and should not be used for apologetics and evangelism.
Up next: AiG argument #2: The World’s a Graveyard.
Grace and Peace
GeoChristian 
Kevin, thanks for starting this series! I appreciate the logic and the detail. I look forward to the rest of responses.
Teach geology to change lives!
Glenn
LikeLike
The flood would have to show geological evidence of deluge and buried creatures. Snelling is simply pointing out that creatures would be buried in this catastrophic event. It sounds like you just want to cling to your old earth theory. You should read up about the massive flaws in the radiometric dating methods used to justify the old earth for the evoltionist. They are relying on outragous assumptions. They way I see it – the Bible is full of numeric significance. 6 was the number given to man. Seeing as the bible says that a day is as a thousand years to God, could this be suggesting a 6000 year old earth? I know this is an assumption too, but evoltuionists so desperately want to try and prove an old earth to validate their theory. Be careful you don’t get caught up in this demonic deception. Remember that satan is the father of lies and he has carefully thought out this elaborate deception to cause man to not believe that God exists, filling scientists mind with thoughts of an old earth to give justification to his ludicrous and outlandish lies. Satan is laughing at these evoltionists and they don’t even realise it. The evidence in the Bible does not support an old earth.
LikeLike
Matthew:
Thanks for commenting.
You are correct: if Noah’s flood had created the sedimentary rock record—though the Bible doesn’t say that it did—then it indeed would contain fossils. But:
–Those fossils would not be sorted as they are (Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician…). The “geologic column” is an observation of nature, and was discovered long before Darwin.
–It would not preserve complete ecosystems in place, such as fossil reefs.
–It would not preserve things like dinosaur footprints or nests. How could there have been terrestrial animals running around in the middle of the flood?
Snelling’s statement that standard geology cannot explain fossils at the top of mountains is wrong, and Snelling should know better.
Regarding the massive flaws in radiometric dating:
–I have done radiometric dating (fission-track dating), so I do know something about the topic.
–I have read up on the latest in young-Earth creationist thinking about radiometric dating, which is the RATE program. In some ways RATE is an improvement over previous efforts, but it still has significant scientific problems.
–Geologists determined that the Earth had to be millions of years old long before Darwin and his evolutionary theory, and even longer before radiometric dating.
In regards to the accusation that I have given into demonic and satanic lies:
–Your accusation is very serious, and shouldn’t be made casually.
–I believe in a real creation by a real God, in a real Adam in a real garden, in a real fall into sin with real consequences, and in Jesus Christ as the only solution to our sin. Is there anything satanic or demonic there?
–Like many old Earth creationists, I believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures. Is there satanic or demonic deception in this?
–I believe the Bible, but I try to not go beyond what the Bible says either. There are three pillars to young-Earth creationism:
1. The “yoms” of Genesis 1 must be understood as literal, consecutive 24-hour days.
2. There was no death before the fall.
3. The flood covered the entire Earth and produced the sedimentary rock record.
Each of these go beyond what the Bible actually says:
1. There are indications within the initial passage of Genesis that “yom” isn’t necessarily to be taken literally. If you haven’t seen these, it is because you have relied solely on young-Earth sources.
2. None of the passages cited by young-Earthers to show that there was no animal death before the fall (Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) says anything at all about animals. They all speak of Adam’s sin resulting in human death.
3. The flood narrative of Genesis 6-9 can easily be understood as a local flood. The word translated as “earth” can also be translated as “land.” The reference to the flood covering the mountains by 15 cubits can also be interpreted as being 15 cubits deep and covering the hills. This is just as good of an understanding of the Hebrew text as the young-Earth interpretation.
I am not going beyond the Scriptures in any of these (and the young-Earthers do). So where am I slipping under the influence of Satan or his demons?
LikeLike
Matthew,
I would like to echo Kevin’s point — please be very careful about labeling old earth Christians being caught up in demonic deception. We are simply looking at all the evidence God placed in his creation, and realizing that it all points to an old earth. As Kevin is trying to point out in these “Six Bad Arguments” series, we have found “ceation science” to be severely flawed. I used to be a young earth supporter, or at least a young earth sympathizer, and even went to YEC supporting churches (Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, Christ Community Church Tucson, and Calvary Chapel Salt Lake City) for a long time. To me, creation science is an attempt to invent an entirely new kind of science which is reverse-engineered from quotes mined from scientific journals and books and perhaps a few field observations at select locations, all under a constraint that is well-stated in Answers in Genesis’ Statement of Faith: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
Regarding the RATE project, please consider reading the following articles in past issues of Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith:
1. How Old Is It? How Do We Know? A Review of Dating Methods – Part One: Relative Dating, Absolute Dating, and Non-radiometric Dating Methods, by Davis Young http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF12-06Young.pdf
2. How Old Is It? How Do We Know? A Review of Dating Methods – Part Two: Radiometric Dating: Mineral, Isochron and Concordia Methods, by Davis Young http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF3-07Young.pdf
3. How Old Is It? How Do We Know? A Review of Dating Methods – Part Three: Thermochronometry, Cosmogenic Isotopes, and Theological Implications, by Davis Young http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Young.pdf
If you don’t read anything else, at least consider reading “The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary” by Dr. Joshua Zorn at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/zorn.html
Tim
p.s., Kevin – Crinoids are actually very common. I’ve seen them all over the place scuba diving in the Coral Sea and in Fiji.
LikeLike
Tim:
Thanks for the clarification on crinoids. They are locally common today, but uncommon enough that most people are not familiar with them. They were certainly much more abundant in late Paleozoic seas, as evidenced by limestones that are composed largely of disarticulated crinoid fragments.
LikeLike
Pingback: Living Fossils: 10 Plants & Animals With Staying Power | WebEcoist
If I’ve read the right article, Snelling’s first argument is based on his claim that the standard geologic explanation for the mountain uplift is fundamentally false.
I’m no geologist, so I found your reply of “The standard geological model of deposition and uplift works perfectly fine” rather inadequate.
I tend to think that if the model works as well as you assert, then you wouldn’t have had much trouble quickly detailing why.
I’m a YEC that loves a bit of criticism, but I must admit that your failure to address the core of Snelling’s number 1 argument in your critique has left me a little underwhelmed.
LikeLike
Timmmo – the rest of the post had multiple places where it is described exactly how the model works and how it describes perfectly well the way marine fossils are on mountains.
What part did you miss? It seems like he did put up several quick details of why the traditional model works just fine.
LikeLike
Your comment on the crinoid fossils is incorrect and misleading. Many of the crinoid fossils were not “held together.” Snelling says himself they were broken apart. It is misleading to state that all crinoid stems would have done the same thing, as different flood events, pre-deluge formations and landscapes, and different sediment introduction would have caused a vared amount of turbulence.
The fact that almost all of the depositions Snelling tells us of are limestone is very telling. They all expose the modern fallacy of “calm marine conditions” and the disintegration of corals and other calcitic biota premised to form the lime mud. If one compares the even soft bodied preservation to the Chingjang limestone and the Cambrian biota it contains, one will see it does not matter at what “time” the limestone was deposited, it was deposited quickly. Soft tissue does not preserve on the bottom of the ocean, as it will be quickly eaten, or decay.
The fact that so much fossil bearing limestone covers the earth, which fossils I emphasize are many times well preserved ichofossils and soft tissue, argues for the pre-existence of perhaps silt like lime mud throughout the earth, or under the earth before the flood.
Also, the fact that geology still insists that these large depositions were slowly deposited in theorized “anoxic” conditions (so as to preserve the fossils), while ignoring the fact of the abundant biota, is a glaring example of the bandwagoning effect that can happen to entire countries (Nazi Germany). It is clear the modern explanations of fossil preservation held up by geology and paleontology are self-contradictory.
LikeLike
Steve:
Thanks for your comment, and for visiting The GeoChristian.
When I first wrote about crinoids being “held together” I was not referring to individual organisms remaining articulated, but to the entire ecosystem staying together as a package, which I find to be a major problem for the YEC geological story. Rather than being scattered by the forces of a global cataclysm, the crinoids stayed together in both a lateral and vertical sense to remain a part of the Redwall Formation.
Individual crinoid organisms should be disarticulated whether in the standard geological explanation, or in the YEC catastrophic scenario.
Your impression that modern geologists teach that all limestones form in “calm marine conditions” is false. Many modern lime muds form in relatively calm conditions, such as in parts of the Bahama Banks, and many ancient limestones appear to bear similar features to these. But there are also clastic limestones, formed from fragments of fossils that have been transported on the sea floor by various currents (e.g. turbidity and storm currents).
Most fossils, such as the crinoids we are discussing, were not deposited under anoxic conditions. Anoxic conditions do occur in certain environments, such as in some ocean basins and soil horizons, so to dismiss this as a mechanism for preserving soft tissues is not a strong argument against and old Earth.
I don’t think I’ve stated anything that is “incorrect and misleading,” nor am I on any “bandwagon.”
Grace and Peace,
Kevin N
LikeLike
If millions of years were true then why did God say “very good” when he was done with Creation? If death was there before man sinned then God must be sadistic. To have death in the world and say very good…… Not a very nice God to begin with.
If death existed before man sinned then Creation should not GROAN because of man. Here are a few versus that says Creation groans because of man’s disobedience: http://www.openbible.info/topics/creation_groans
Therefore,
(1) God is sadistic. He brought in death before man sinned. Before anything happened he allowed death, pain & suffering into the world. Therefore, the nature of God should be questioned.
(2) If Adam’s disobedience was only for man then the Bible should not blame Adam for the death of Creation.
Even Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologists states that one cant fit evolution, millions of years & the Bible.
You should also want to check this out: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
LikeLike
iperennial,
In regards to the goodness of creation and animal death before Adam’s sin, please consider the following:
1 — Young-Earth creationists teach that there was no animal death before the fall of Adam. However, none of the passages used as evidence of this (Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) actually say anything about animal death.
2 — Both the Old Testament and New Testament speak of the goodness of creation, even after Adam’s sin. Psalm 104 is a retelling of Genesis 1 (with events in the same order: light-heavens-earth-waters-animals-birds-humans), and speaks of predation as being part of God’s provision within nature with no hint that there is anything wrong with this (also see Job 38:39). 1 Tim 4:4 tells us that God’s creation retains its goodness in the present age.
3 — Romans 8 states that the creation is groaning, but it does not say that this “groaning” is animal death. Instead, it says that this groaning is because the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons (or children) of God. One of Adam’s roles in Genesis 1 was that he was to have dominion over the creation, which meant that he (and his descendants) were to be wise and careful stewards or gardeners. The groaning of creation is not so much that animals die, but that mankind is not in its proper place within and over the creation, resulting in environmental degradation rather than healing. This flows much more naturally out of Romans 8 than does the YEC interpretation.
4 — In light of my first three points, one can conclude that the YEC “animals did not die before the fall” argument is more of a “If I were God, this is how I would do it” argument rather than one based on what the Bible actually says.
5 — The fact that Richard Dawkins agrees with young-Earth creationists isn’t a really good argument for young-Earth creationism.
Thanks for visiting The GeoChristian and for your comment.
LikeLike
Pingback: Six bad answers to questions raised in Genesis are still six bad answers « Fr. Orthohippo
With all due respect brother, your statement above in point 3 of # 12 is not correct. Romans 8 clearly states in verse 21 “because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”(NKJV). Therefore the creation itself was subjected to death and decay because of sin. This includes animals. Notice the creation itself (which includes animals) will once again enter into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This is clearly liberty from death. You are splitting hairs, and with no basis to do so, when you make statements to the effect sin only brought death to mankind. Clearly, Romans 8:20 shows the creation was also subjected to futility (death, decay) specifically because of the sin of man. Verses 22-3 tells us the creation groans and labors waiting for “its” liberation which is separate from “our” groaning within ourselves waiting for our redemption. Also, we see in Isaiah 11:6-9, in the Millennial Kingdom, all enmity between animals (and man) will be done away with in a partial restoration because, as the Holy Spirit says, “they will not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain”. The only reason you or anyone believes in this nonsense of an ancient earth with animals dying is because, primarily, you do not know the Lord your God as you should. He is LIFE and not death. In the end as we are told in Revelation, He will put all death under His feet because it is His enemy. God will not even have animals to die. Death of any kind is a thing to be annihilated by Him. In the fullness of His presence there is no death of any kind. This is why God the Father will not come down until Jesus has put all enemies under His feet. But you must have death before sin, else what you believe is dealt a mortal blow.
And secondarily, you believe in billions of years because you believe what you see and what science says over what the Word of God says. You make the bible bow to science. But when science is found to be wrong, then what? It is as YEC say, its a matter of authority.
LikeLike
Pingback: Natural Earth’s Living Fossils | Natural Earth
I find the arguments for and against your article intriguing and informative. The problem with some aspects of science is that they are based on assumptions–one could argue that even Creationist – based science is based on an assumption–> that God’s Word is inerrant and does not contradict.
The geologic column is a poor example for an argument.as there are very few, if any, 100% complete samples. Most samples are missing layers, and then compared with other samples from other points around the world in hopes of finding the information that is missing. From what I understand, and please correct me if I’m wrong as my understanding isn’t nearly as detailed as yours, layers in the geologic column are dated based upon “known” fossil ages, which are dated via radiometric dating (K-Ar being the most widely used) under the assumption that gases do not escape through rock pores, fissures, and the like. It is the “circular” type of dating methods that the AiG has issues with, from what i understand. It is something that any scientist should question, quite honestly, regardless of whether your background is Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or whatever. The problem is that those who question the methods are silenced or laughed out of their profession because it does not coincide with what the devil wants man wants to believe. Remember: Galileo was jailed because he professed the earth moves around the sun. ((if my memory serves me correctly, I should add)). He was ridiculed for thinking different, and today we know that he was correct.
Now, the problem I have with Christians who believe in old-earth dating is this: old-earth/evolutionary dating is contradictory to creation. You cannot believe in evolution/old-earth ages AND be a Christian because you are saying that you only believe in part of the Bible, not the entire Bible. A true Christian believes the entire Bible to be inerrant, non-contradictory, inspired words of God, not just parts of it that suit him or her and their ideals. If you take a look at the genealogy of man from the day he was created… you can see that man’s time on earth is very very short–not hundreds of thousands of years, but shorter. The Bible tells you this, if you take the time to study and follow the ages of births/deaths in Genesis, clear as day–man has not been on earth as long as evolutionists/long-age earth believers think they have been. This, for a Christian, is the first red alert that evolution/long-age can not be possible. This genealogy is the basis for the idea that earth is young–because God tells us it is through his chosen representatives on earth.
I’m not saying science is bad, or this branch is better than that one. I love science, my boys love science, it’s a very intriguing topic in general that does the best it can to explain what God has created, and has made some very fascinating discoveries/connections. What I am trying to say is that “you cannot serve two masters”. You cannot say that you believe in the Bible’s accuracy, and then also say that you believe in man’s accuracy even more. I understand that in many branches of science, you must set aside personal beliefs, however, you must choose which master to serve–God or man–and you will be rewarded by your choice. Keep in mind that we live on God’s creation, but the world is controlled by the devil, who masquerades as light.
**I am not trying to question the strength of anyone’s faith, only to remind us all that we can only serve one master so be wise about which one to serve.**
LikeLike
What interests me is that only some of the tops of mountain ranges are marine sediments and others are not. Did the flood only cover some mountains, including the tallest, and not others? How did THAT happen?
When it comes to Genesis, creationists also cling to the notion that males are the basis of the species, since Adam came first and Eve was created from him. But biology has demonstrated without doubt that the female is the basis of the species, EVERY species (that have sex) and the male is a variation on the theme. Every embryo begins as a female and remains so until hormones convert the female sex organs into male. When biologists refer to “daughter cells” they are not being politically correct–it is literally true. If you take any cell, not sex-associated, from any body, male or female, and clone it, you will get a female, every time. Virtually every cell in your body, whether you are a man or a woman, is female. Genesis is just plain wrong.
LikeLike
John,
I am not a young-Earth creationist for a number of reasons, but basically, the Bible does not require a young Earth, and science doesn’t support it. But within the young-Earth model, I don’t see a problem with some mountains not having sediments. If they were uplifted during a time of erosion, they wouldn’t have sediments.
I have been studying Genesis for several decades, and I have never come across the concept that “males are the basis of the species,” either for humans or for animals. I think you have picked up a misconception somewhere.
Additionally, I don’t follow your reasoning from genetics. A somatic cell (i.e., non-gamete) still has sex chromosomes, so I don’t understand what you mean by saying that if you take a somatic cell, such as a skin cell, and clone it, it clones as a female. If it is a sex cell from a male, it will still have a Y chromosome, and therefore be “male,” even if sex is not expressed in skin cells. Perhaps you are talking about taking somatic cell nuclei and placing them in ova, but that wasn’t clear, and even in this case the genetic makeup of a cell is either XX or XY. But all of this is irrelevant to Genesis.
If you are going to claim that “Genesis is just plain wrong,” you ought to discuss the real Genesis with real facts.
LikeLike
Yes, the Bible does require a young Earth. Jesus affirmed the Earth was not billions of years old and no Darwinian macro evolution ever occurred. We do not refer to science to authenticate the Word of God. Science doesn’t support a virgin birth, dead resurrecting, or other miracles.
And actually to say science doesn’t support a young Earth isn’t how your thought should be phrased. “Most scientists don’t support a young Earth” I believe more accurately reflects your viewpoint. Many scientists disagree with you. Science is merely a methodology for probing the creation to find out stuff about it. As such, the results gained from using that methodology can be, and at times have been, wrong. Scientists have beliefs, viewpoints, and ideas about the creation. Science is not a sentient being and does not. When fallible human scientists dispute the Word of God, they are wrong and in sin.
Many scientists are atheist, and as such are spoken of in Eph 2:2. They will be used by the devil to attack the authority, accuracy, and truth of God’s Word. Do not side with them when they do so.
LikeLike
Scientists work from the data they observe in God’s book of creation that declares the glory of God. I do not believe in a God who is deceptive, who falsifies data to confuse humanity. I believe in a God who is trustworthy and whose created order is knowable by the humanity he created, he loves, and with whom he wants to be in relationship. Science does not and cannot authenticate scripture, but it informs how we interpret scripture, just as linguistics, archaeology and history do.
“Unexpected, but accurate, data come from the hand of God, whatever the motives of those who discover them. Of course, such data do not come with attached meaning. We have to figure it out. But we should have confidence that God already knows how it all rightly fits together. Our challenge is to solve the puzzle he has set us, without losing fellowship with each other. We must follow the Lion wherever he goes–and give him glory for the works of his hands.” (David L. Wilcox, in the journal “Perspectives on Science and Christianity,” Oct. 2014)
LikeLike
Scott,
Thanks for your comment. You state that Jesus affirmed a young Earth. Where? He affirmed that Noah’s flood occurred, and so do most old-Earth Christians. He affirmed the existence of Adam and Eve, and so do I. Where does the Bible say that “no Darwinian macro evolution ever occurred?” The Bible says that God created categories of living organisms, but when it says they are to reproduce after their kinds, it does not place a limit on how much they can change from generation to generation. Genesis does hint that there were processes involved in the origin of living organisms: “Let the Earth produce…”
I agree that science doesn’t “support” things like the resurrection. I believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, etc., by faith. It is a reasonable faith, but it is not founded on what the world calls “reason.” The Bible teaches these things about Jesus, and I accept them. I don’t have to “prove” them in order to believe them. I don’t believe in a young Earth, because I, like many biblical scholars through the ages, am not convinced such a thing is required by Scripture.
I am very well aware that there are scientists who disagree with me, such as Andrew Snelling, the author of the article from Answers in Genesis that is being discussed here. What I think I demonstrate in articles such as those in this “Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis” series is that even the best of the best of the young-Earth creationists use arguments that just don’t fit the reality of God’s creation.
LikeLike
Where does Jesus affirm a young Earth?- Mark10:6- “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” Adam and Eve were therefore made at the beginning of the creation which would be day 6. If they were created billions of years later, this would be relatively recently in Earths history ( if the Earth is 4.6 billion years old), and thus couldn’t have been made at the beginning.
In Luke 11:50-51 Jesus speaks of the blood of the prophets being shed “from the foundation of the world.” This would be the blood of Abel, and if shed billions of years later, wasn’t at the foundation of the world.
The Apostle Paul, very clearly, in Romans 1:20 informs us the attributes of God have been clearly perceived by people “ever since the creation of the world” by the things that have been made. If people weren’t perceiving the works of God until billions of years later, Paul, and the Holy Spirit, were somehow mistaken. This particular statement from scripture is very condemning of an old Earth view.
The above scriptures also speak very strongly against evolution. Perhaps one of the most concise statements in scripture condemning belief in Darwinian evolution would be 1 Cor 11:8- “For man is not from woman, but woman from man”. This statement very clearly clarifies, verifies, and supports the Genesis account of Adam’s creation is literal history as written. Man never formed in the womb of any woman. The Holy Spirit doesn’t stop there, however. He lets us know woman came from man. We know no man, even Adam, has ever been able to bear children, and so Eve never was in the womb either. Therefore, the Genesis account is literal history.
Throughout the Bible we have scripture supporting scripture concerning a young Earth with no Darwinian evolution. This view flows easily and unstrained from a normative reading of scripture.
LikeLike
Carol,
I do not believe in a deceptive God either. However, I do believe in deceptive scientists, as well as scientists who are fallible and mistaken. Particularly when they are unbelievers who reject God’s history of creation and fall under Eph 2:2.
The creation does reveal the glory of God and his attributes. However, the creation is not Holy Spirit inspired scripture. It is also marred through sin, so that it’s present state and nature are not as it was in the beginning. What are all the ramifications of the Fall? Where is a complete and comprehensive list of every affect on nature? We can’t know, and scientists can’t tell us.
I must respectfully disagree with you concerning science informing us as how to interpret scripture. See my post in #19 above. Good hermeneutics show us how to interpret scripture, but never science. When scientists are found to be wrong in how they interpreted their data, then how do we interpret scripture? According to the next popular theory? You make a grievous error here.
Also, nowhere does scripture tell us our challenge is to “solve the puzzle he has set us, without losing fellowship with each other.” We are instead to convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and….doctrine. Because the time will come (and is here now) when many will not endure sound doctrine, but will turn from the truth and be turned aside to…..fables. No, our challenge is to contend earnestly for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints. And this in a world that hates God, His Word, and us. An old Earth view erodes the foundation of the gospel, superimposes an unjustified filter of allegory and metaphor over the literal histories in Genesis, and undermines the doctrine of inerrancy.
LikeLike
Scott,
Science does not drive biblical interpretation, but scientific discoveries can cause us to take a second look at the Scriptures, to make sure we really understand what God is communicating to us. The prime example of this was the Copernican Revolution. Many theologians at that time, both Catholic and Protestant, stuck to their geocentric interpretations of passages such as Psalms 93:1 and 96:10. Others, prompted by evidence for heliocentrism, were willing to look at alternative interpretations. Today, we place a greater emphasis on genre in interpretation of such passages, and few theologians give much thought to the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debate.
I think the parallels to the current debate over the age of the Earth are strong. Christians have been forced by science to take a closer look at what the Bible says, and doesn’t say, about origins. A few have refused to seriously take a closer look (like those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope), some have taken a closer look at the Bible and held to the young-Earth interpretation (which I respect), and some have taken a closer look at the Bible and seen room for flexibility about the age of the Earth.
Given that scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to an old creation, we need to be able to ask the question, “what does the Bible say?” Many theologically conservative, Bible-believing scholars have examined the text and come to the conclusion that the Bible does not require a young Earth. They have done so after being prompted by science, but that is not the same as saying that they have read science into the Bible.
As one example showing how we old-Earthers understand the biblical teaching on the age of the Earth, consider Moses. I hold him forth as a biblical author who was far less concerned about the age of the universe than modern young-Earth creationists are. There are clear examples where Moses, the author of Genesis 1, used “day” in a non-literal sense. The first of these is Genesis 2:4, where Moses writes, “These are the generation of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (ESV). Here, “day” refers to the entire creation period. It is not a literal day. The second passage is Psalm 90:4, where Moses wrote, “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” The context of this verse is creation, as can be clearly seen in the preceding verses. If we apply the basic hermeneutical principle of “let Scripture interpret Scripture,” we see that perhaps the Bible isn’t as rigid about the meaning of “yom” in regards creation as some Christians are.
In regards to Jesus’ statements using phrases like “from the beginning of creation,” I think you are making too much of what could be an idiomatic phrase. Whether referring to Adam and Eve or to Abel, neither is literally at the beginning of creation. In fact, Adam and Eve are at the end of the creation accounts, and Abel is after the creation accounts. This is why I think there is a little bit of an idiomatic slant to the phrase “from the beginning,” just like “all the earth” almost always means something other than “all the earth” in the Bible.
I agree, when fallible scientists (such as Richard Dawkins and many others) attack the Bible, they are being sinful and rebellious against their Creator. I don’t follow their teachings.
I also don’t follow teachings of some Christians, who hold forth poor (fallible) arguments for the truthfulness of the Bible. But they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I will treat them as such.
LikeLike
I will just here affirm one doesn’t need to believe in a young earth to obtain salvation for our Lord Jesus. You are my brother in Christ and I will love you as such. I don’t question your salvation.
The pronouncements of Atheist scientists are very clearly driving Old Earthers interpretations. See Gleason Archers A Survey of Old
Testament Introduction, p.187. He based his interpretation on the alleged findings of modern science, then sought to justify it with linguistic arguments from the Hebrew. I do respect him as one of the foremost experts in the biblical languages of the 20th century, however. But if even Solomon fell into error, so can respected scholars. And one doesn’t have to necessarily be a scholar to detect their error, though sometimes you do.
Interesting fact about the Galileo affair: Rival academics pushed the Catholic Church to oppose Galileo. They stood to lose face after professing a
heliocentricgeocentric universe their whole careers if Galileo was correct. But the Catholic leaders of that day certainly deserve their shame. There is also a certain amount of myth about the story with the telescope. I get your somewhat subtle reference here, but allow me my own: The telescopes of Galileo’s day were infamous for their poor quality, and didn’t present an accurate view of things.Psalms 93 and 96 speak of the Earth not being “moved”. This word in the Hebrew indicates something not slipping, falling or being destroyed. This is what my Strong’s Concordance tells me anyway. So God is essentially indicating He created the Earth and it will remain. There is nothing here or anywhere else in the Bible that would compel a geocentric view in the least. Unlike with a young earth view.
I don ‘t see many parallels myself. No scriptural evidence for geocentric view vs. many compelling scriptures for a young earth view. Also, Galileo believed in God and His Word. He wasn’t trying to disprove God’s Word. Most Scientists today treat it as mere myth and nonsense, and fall under Eph 2:2. They will be used by Satan to attack the authority of God’s Word. But angry rival scientists not wanting to trash their pet theory when other scientists start pointing out it’s wrong? Yeah, some parallels there.
Are you really trying to say “yom” cannot be taken literally in Gen 1 because it’s not literal in Gen 2:4 and elsewhere? Context is everything, and one must ignore context as well as the clear indications of the length of each creation day being one evening and one morning. When God repeats himself 6 times concerning the length of a day, then clarifies and verifies it in Exodus 31:15-17, then one must engage in linguistic sleight of hand to avoid the truth and turn the Word where one wishes it to go. Even Archer admits in the above listed reference the Hebrew is indicating 24 hours.(albeit with a “superficial” reading) As do all Hebrew scholars. Then some wrestle it where they want it to go. Moses would be very concerned you take God at His Word and believe Gen 1 and how long God took. It was Moses who wrote “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. Now, logically, if one of us believes in an ancient universe of billions of years, and one of us is believing in literally what the Word says and thousand of years, then one of us is not believing the truth of God and living by His word. One of us, either you or me, is deceived.
Ps. 90, I respectfully submit, has no reference to the creation week. Please read it again. Verse 2 simply attributes an eternal self existent nature to God: He existed before creation. Verse 4 shows God is not bound or affected by time as we are. The rest of the psalm contrasts Gods eternal life with our short lives lived in sorrow and judgment for sin. It ends with a plea for God to show His love and mercy to His servants. The thrust of the Psalm is God is timeless and eternal. We are not. He is a God of righteous judgment. We should obey Him. Nothing relating to the length of a day here.
If the New Testament verses I quoted in my last post are idioms, my view of Genesis may or may not be true. If they are not idioms as I believe, you’re view can’t stand. I urge you to inquire of the Holy Spirit concerning these and do not take them lightly. Keep Proverbs 3:5 in mind as you pray. It makes a big difference what we believe about this matter. And I will pray for you as well.
LikeLike
edit to above: In 3rd paragraph above, should read: “They stood to lose face after professing a geocentric……
LikeLike
Today, my good friend of 15 years died. His name was Yogi, and he was a black lab mix. A rather unique personality amongst dogs, and everyone loved him. My grief as I sit and type this is as profound as if I lost one of my children or grandchildren. Rev 21:4: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
But if the animals have and always will die because this is the perfection God created, how will He do away with our sorrow and crying because the animals will be loved? They will perish after living for a time, suffering with disease and being preyed upon. And we will be full of the joy of the Lord observing this?
Perhaps it’s only because of my sinful nature that I grieve my dog. When I am perfected and in the Kingdom, I too will say with God “That’s very good!” when He makes all things new again and animals like my Yogi continue to get old, acquire disease, suffer and die. Because this is how he made it in the beginning, right? Perhaps I have a false image of God in my mind and don’t know God very well.
Or perhaps that’s not the future scenario at all. Perhaps animals will again not die at all, being “liberated from the bondage of corruption INTO the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Rom 8:21) (Yes, some people have been seriously misreading that scripture.) Our glorious liberty is freedom from death, disease, suffering, and pain. See Rev 21:4 above.
OEC and YEC must accept very different images and understandings of God in our hearts and minds in order to maintain our respective beliefs. One view of God says He creates through death, suffering and disease, and leaves it in the creation. The other group says God never created animals or people to die. One group is demonically deceived having accepted a false image of God, and one group is not deceived having a more accurate image of God. This is a very, very serious matter. You better believe God views it as such. See John 4:23-24.
So…… who’s deceived?
LikeLike
Scott,
I am sorry to hear about the passing of your dog and friend, Yogi. I have experienced the grief of the passing of a pet, and as one who has pets now, will likely experience that grief again.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers to the problem of suffering in the animal kingdom. As an old-Earther, I have to accept that animals died before Adam’s sin, but again, that is not a topic that the Bible addresses. It simply does not say that there was no animal death before Adam’s sin.
YECs assume that there is a symmetry in the Bible that goes like this:
Perfection–>Fall–>History–>Return of Christ–>Perfection
The YEC assumption is that the beginning state (Genesis 1-2) has all of the same characteristics as the end state (Rev 21-22). But that symmetry is an assumption that doesn’t have strong biblical support. In Genesis 1-2, the creation was not only good, but it was also immature and not yet what God intended it to be. Perhaps images of the future–lions and lambs lying down together–cannot be projected into the pre-Adamic past.
In support of this, consider the following:
1. God commanded Adam to subdue the Earth. This implies that Earth, outside of the Garden, was a wild place in need of subduing. This doesn’t match the typical YEC picture of the entire Earth as some sort of gentle land of bunnies and daisies, where nothing could so much as give a scratch to anything else. YEC doesn’t make sufficient distinction between what it was like inside the garden and what it was like outside.
2. God provided the tree of life in order to give Adam and Eve access to eternal life. If they were immortal by nature, why did they need the tree of life? Were they created “very good,” but nonetheless mortal apart from the sustaining grace of God given through the tree of life? This was Aquinas’s view. And what about animals? Did Adam and Eve require the tree of life in order to live forever, but animals did not? YEC doesn’t have a solid explanation of what the tree of life was for.
3. If there was to be no animal death before the fall, how long would it have taken for Earth to be overrun by animals? Not very long. Not only would we have an excess of domestic pets—cats, dogs, canaries—but of everything from earthworms to platypuses, not to mention organisms that replicate on short time spans such as bacteria.
History is therefore a little bit assymetrical:
Immature but good creation –> Fall –> History –> Return of Christ –> Perfection.
And will pets be resurrected? I don’t have the slightest idea. Again, I wish you God’s comfort in your sorrow.
Grace and Peace
LikeLike
Thanks for your sympathy. And I apologize for my sarcasm in previous post. Sometimes I can be harsh and I try to give this to the Holy Spirit.
Well, first, you state the Bible does not say there was no animal death before the fall. It does. Romans 8:20-21 shows the creation was subjected to futility and corruption after the Curse. And this is separate from the effects of the Curse on us. This word corruption, in the Greek, means decay, decomposition, or to perish. It was not there pre-curse. Therefore animals did not die. Death, we are told in 1Cor 15:25-26 is the last enemy Christ will put under his feet. Why should YEC not have a view of history as you outline above? OEC must see God as putting death into the creation for billions of years. So He put His enemy into the animals only to plan to deliver them from it billions of years later? No, they were subjected to it after the fall as clearly said by Paul in Romans 8.
There is no way to deftly parry this by asserting idioms, allegory, or metaphor. The language is plain. And the animals are not merely waiting for us to be delivered from the bondage of corruption, they are groaning in themselves until their deliverance into our glorious liberty. God only creates perfection. That’s why He pronounced it “very good” after day 6. Very good doesn’t have His enemy in it. Anywhere. So, yes, the Bible does show in Romans 8 no animal death initially.
Concerning your points above:
1. Subduing does mean to subjugate or bring under control. Does this mean the creation was immature? I don’t know if we can infer this from the Hebrew. What exactly do you mean by immature? It wasn’t yet populated and Adam and Eve were told to multiply and be fruitful. They and their offspring were to have dominion over all living things. Does this mean it was wild and dangerous? That would be speculation. And I just don’t see God creating a dangerous place for His children to take dominion of. I don’t believe any animals were carnivores due to Gen 1:30. No one today knows just what all the differences were between the Garden and the rest of the world. Perhaps it was just a place of unparalleled beauty. It did have the Tree of Life. But I rarely speculate concerning Biblical things.
2 I have to give you a point here. I had not considered the Tree apparently wasn’t outside the Garden. Obviously it wasn’t, because God set an angel to guard the entrance to the garden so Adam and Eve couldn’t have access to the Tree. How to reconcile this with my points above about Romans 8? I don’t know yet. I’ll have to try and look into this.
3. God opens the womb and God closes the womb brother. I don’t believe this would be a problem with God who is in control. And even more so in the beginning before Adam allowed Satan to have place here.
Concerning resurrection of pets: I have put in a special request. You could do the same for yours. I believe God just may do it for us.
Grace and Peace to you
LikeLike
First, I am not a scientist and I don’t pretend to be one.
But to pretend to understand and explain Genesis from one discipline of science seems completely narrow sighted and naive to me.
What if you take the average rate of decay (which I don’t know, but would love to) and multiply it by 4.6 billion years and see if there is any earth left? Maybe you’d have a mud bowl at the best.
i know an engineer, who worked at NASA back in the sixties. They did a study on the amount of dust on the moon. Figuring that the earth and universe are millions of years old, the amount of dust on the moon would measure in dozens of feet, based on the rate that dust travels and collects in space (this is at least one reason why the first ship on the moon had come shaped feet). As we all know, the amount of dust on the moon only measures in inches. Using the rate at which the dust travels thru space and is collected (which I believe is constant), you get roughly 12,000 years.
I heard a sermon from a PHD physicist, who’s job is to study strong energy in electrons, he said that the probability (measured between 1 and 0) of earth forming with all of its qualities as a random occurrence was 10 to the negative power of 284. Simply not possible.
Great topic. I appreciate all the comments I’ve read.
LikeLike
Ryan,
Thanks for your comment, and I hope you find something of value here at The GeoChristian.
The “moon dust” argument you referred to was commonly used by young-Earth creationists (YEC) back in the 1960s and 1970s, but the major YEC organizations, such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, have come out and stated that the argument is faulty and should not be used. For example, see http://creation.com/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful. Despite this, the argument is still used by some fringe YEC teachers.
As you can tell from my writings, I am not a YEC. I do not believe that the Bible requires a young Earth, nor do I believe YEC is scientifically credible. I do hold to the Bible as God’s inerrant revelation, and all of the core doctrines of the Christian faith, as I have explained here. I was once a YEC, and did not switch to accepting an old Earth until I was convinced that the Bible left the question of the age of the creation unanswered. For a few examples of Biblical reasoning for allowing for an old Earth, see my GeoScriptures series. Or better yet, pick a book from the right margin of this web site.
Grace and Peace
Kevin Nelstead
LikeLike
Kevin, thanks for writing GeoChristian. I am a Christian, and a geologist, and whilst I have only just came across your site, it seems share many of your views. I’m looking forward to reading through this series, especially as I just had a discussion about this topic yesterday!
I’d like to encourage you in your walk with God and in your endeavours to share science literacy amongst our Christian brother and sisters.
God bless!
LikeLike
Greg — Thanks for your encouragement, and I am glad that you have been encouraged by what you have read on The GeoChristian. I hope to get back to blog writing in early 2016 after I finish writing my middle school Earth science textbook.
LikeLike
Your article loat me a bit and seemed awefully focused on North America. You failed to address much.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be something to die and then find out that ALL of your “falsely so called science” is totally wrong?
Fortunately there are people in our churches and Christian education systems that haven’t been brainwashed by our secular government education systems that they are unable to understand what the Bible is literally telling us. A Christian is saved through faith! You my friend have turned your back on God’s word and have let your mind and thought process be controlled by Satan! People can stand and look at the same thing and come up with different explanations as to how something came about.
My advice to you is to truly pray open heatedly for a true insight as to understanding the Bible and also what really happened in the past and no not let your mind be influenced by Satans teachings.
It would be the worst thing imaginable to die and find out that not only you were terribly wrong, but you have destroyed other people’s faith in God’s word and they will be with you on the other side of the fence because of you!
I love you and pray for you!
LikeLike
dakota3616,
I appreciate your concern, and sense that you wrote with sincere love.
As an old-Earth Christian, I believe in creation from nothing by the triune God of the Bible. I also believe in a real Adam who represented all of humanity, and who committed a real first sin, with consequences for us all. I believe that Jesus in God in the flesh, that he died for my sins, that he rose from the dead, and that he is ruler of all creation.
Am I “on the other side of the fence” and “controlled by Satan” because I disagree with you about the opening chapters of Genesis? In other words, is a person saved by faith in Christ, or saved by interpreting Genesis in a certain way? Do you respond the same way to Christians who differ with you about other doctrinal issues, such as end times prophecy, church government, gifts of the Holy Spirit, or the meaning of the Lord’s supper?
I was once a young-Earth Christian, but became open to an ancient Earth for both Biblical and scientific reasons. For Biblical arguments that the Bible does not require a young Earth, I suggest a few of the books linked on the right side of this web page, such as the ESV Study Bible, Genesis 1-4 by Collins, and Seven Days that Divide the World by Lennox. All of these are written by Biblical scholars who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy and who are thoroughly orthodox in their beliefs.
Grace and Peace
LikeLike
Jesus comments on the credibility of the ” literal 7 day ” creation week in a parable .
It is in the ” Rich man and Lazarus ” – Luke 16 : 19 … an unlikely source you might think .
The rich man dies and in Hades calls out to Father Abraham to ” send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue ” … Abraham gives reasons then refuses the request.
The rich man then BEGS Abraham ” send Lazarus to my fathers house for I have 5 brothers to warn them ,so that they will not also come to this place . ” …
The answer is the key :
Abraham says this .. verse 29 . They have Moses and the prophets : ” let them listen to them .”
and again verse 31 . ” If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets they will not be convinced even if some one rises from the dead ” .
Why would Jesus note that in his teaching Abraham singled out Moses twice , distinct from all the other prophets for special mention ? Is Moses is to be believed is the question both Jesus and Abraham put forth ?
Could it be Moses wrote Genesis 1-11 , the factual account on which the rest on the Bible stands ….
Many in the church remain un convinced as to the account that Moses rendered regarding the Creation .
Create , created , Creator , creation is included through out the Bible, 65 times where as evolve & evolution are not in the Bible at all .
Surely , the God of the Bible would be quite capable of communicating and tracking the passage of of time.
He does , in months , years, indeed hundreds of years , yet He specifically choses days for the Creation account .
Millions or billions of years is not in the Bible it was sadly introduced after Darwin’s THEORY of evolution became popular in the 1860s …
Perhaps credence should be given to Genesis 1-11 as supported by the genealogies through out the Bible , because all must be true or none of them are true … which raises the senario :
If untrue or incorrect …. Jesus is desended from a myth & didn’t conquere death for sinners … like me .
John 3 : 16 says he did .
LikeLike
T Johnson,
As an old-Earth Christian, I do believe Moses, and I do believe in the Genesis 1-11 account as the inerrant Word of God. I don’t, however, believe that Genesis 1 requires a young Earth. Our disagreement is not about whether or not you or I believe Moses, but about our interpretation of Genesis 1. My belief in an old Earth does not diminish in any way the fact of human sin, or our need for the cleansing blood of Jesus our savior.
First, I will correct one thing. The concept of an ancient Earth was not introduced after Darwin. A millions of years old Earth was widely accepted by the early 1800s, both inside and outside the church. Darwin published “Origin of Species” in 1859, yet in 1855 Charles Spurgeon stated in one of his sermons, “We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam…”
I’ll give you a few brief reasons why I don’t believe Genesis 1 requires a young Earth:
1. In terms of the layout of Genesis 1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (1:1) lies outside of the structure of the six days. Hebrew scholars disagree about the how 1:1 relates to the rest of the passage, but it is possible that it could have been any period of time beforehand.
2. The word for day (yom) is used in at least two non-literal ways in Gen 1:1 through 2:4. In 1:5, the first occurrence of yom, it means daylight (~12 hours) rather than 24 hours. In 2:4 yom refers to the entire creation week. Even in the places where it states “there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day,” a literal day in Hebrew is not from evening to morning, but from sunset to sunset. This could mean that the days are a break in the action rather than literal 24-hour days.
3. There are obvious non-literal elements in the passage. Take, for example, the seventh day, in which God rested from his work of creation. People rest because they get tired. God, on the other hand, rested on the seventh day because he was done. I get worn out on a long hike in the mountains. God was able to create the entire universe without the slightest diminishment of his strength. It is clear that God’s rest on Day 7 was not like our rest. It was similar to our rest—such as Sabbath rest or nightly rest—in that God ceased from his work. But it was different from our rest in that there was no reason whatsoever why God needed to stop, other than the fact that he had accomplished what he set out to do. We humans get to the point where we must rest, even though our work is not yet complete. God’s rest, then, is similar (or analogous) to our rest, but not identical. There are at least three of these analogies in the opening passage of Genesis:
–God’s rest is similar to, but not identical to, our rest.
–God’s work is similar to, but not identical to, our work.
–God’s speech is similar to, but not identical to, our speech.
If God’s rest is not like our rest, and God’s work is not like our work, and God’s speech is not like our speech, could it not be at least possible that God’s day is not the same as our day? This is especially true in light of Ps 90:4, which states that “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” Could it be that Moses (the author Ps 90:4) was not as concerned about the literalness of “day” as some modern Christians are?
There are other Biblical arguments for allowing a longer time span in Genesis than the young-Earth interpretation. The key point is that these are BIBLICAL arguments, not a reading of science into Scripture.
I hope this helps a little.
LikeLike
Hey Im just a curious Christian from rural South Africa. Ive heard that most scientists agree that the earth was once totally submerged in water. I think you even mentioned this pseudofact in this article. After reading Genesis 1 I am surprised to find that before creation that was exactly the state of the earth. How could Moses get this fundamental fact right but fail when it comes to the other stuff?
LikeLike
Jesus spoke about Noah’s flood as a fact, do you believe there was a worldwide flood?
LikeLike
Switchcasper — I believe Noah’s flood was a historical event. I don’t believe the text of Genesis 6-9 requires a “worldwide flood” the way it is presented by young-Earth organizations such as Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, and nothing that Jesus said indicates that Jesus advocated a global flood in this sense. The flood was certainly a large event, and seemed universal from Noah’s perspective, but it is an over-reading of the text to force our modern understanding of the shape and extent of the Earth onto Noah, Moses, or the ancient Israelites in general.
There are good, Scriptural reasons for believing Genesis does not require a global flood.
1. Universal language in the Bible is almost never meant to be taken literally. In just about every place where the the Bible says, “all the earth,” something other than “all the earth” is clearly intended by the author. See https://geochristian.com/2013/03/11/geoscriptures-genesis-719/.
2. The vocabulary for some key terms in the flood account is much more ambiguous in Hebrew than it is in English. For example, the word translated as “earth” in Genesis 6-9 could also be translated into English as “land.” No Hebrew scholars that I know of disagree with this. A few legitimate insights into the vocabulary of the flood account make it sound much less global and far more local. See https://geochristian.com/2013/05/19/geoscriptures-genesis-6-9-reading-the-account-of-noahs-local-flood/
LikeLike
I think it is more of a stretch to insist in a regional flood as opposed to a worldwide one. Genesis 7 describes the flood waters extending above the mountains. How was the water contained only within the local region when the water level is supposed to have exceeded the mountains “under the whole heaven?” The nature of the landscape is not likely to have restricted the flood waters to one region. Isn’t it more likely the water spilled into the surrounding regions and the water level of the “local” region rose only after the water levels of the other regions rose? I think to insist on a localized flood requires one to ignore the plain meaning of the language, and delve into eisegesis.
LikeLike
DogTags — Thank you for your comment. The text of Genesis 6-8 (the flood account) is more ambiguous about the extent of the flood in Hebrew than it is in our English translations. Consider the following:
1. Universal language in the Bible is almost never meant to be taken literally. In other words, “all the earth” almost never means “all the earth.” For example, in 1 Kings 18:10, Elijah is told that “There is no nation or kingdom where my lord [King Ahab] has not sent to seek you.” Because the Bible says that Ahab had sent emissaries to all nations, do we have to believe that Ahab searched for Ahab in Japan and in the Americas? I don’t think so. I have elaborated on this here: https://geochristian.com/2013/03/11/geoscriptures-genesis-719/
2. The words used for “earth,” “mountains,” and “heavens” in the flood story are very broad terms. You brought up that the flood exceeded the mountains under the whole heaven. This could just as easily be translated that the flood exceeded all the hills under the sky. Look in any Hebrew lexicon and you will see that this is true. Gen 7:17-20 can legitimately be tranlated as:
“For forty days the flood kept coming on the land, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the land. 1The waters rose and increased greatly on the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the land, and all the high hills under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than fifteen cubits, and the hills were covered.”
The story takes on a very different feel when translated this way. Read more at https://geochristian.com/2013/05/19/geoscriptures-genesis-6-9-reading-the-account-of-noahs-local-flood/
LikeLiked by 1 person
To GeoChristian,
I am a Christian — I try to be — but am not a YEC. I don’t believe the Bible supports it….for several reasons.
However, I do believe Noah’s Flood was literal; the account has too many details to be allegorical. The most compelling evidence is the exact dimensions given to Noah for building the Ark. Studies have revealed that those dimensions are ideally suited for it’s purpose: to simply float, with no power. It was found to be completely seaworthy!
How did the writer of Genesis know?
Since there’s a lot that geology scientists still don’t understand, and taking the Young-Earth out of the equation, why couldn’t a global Flood explain geologic features? Coupled with the import of Psalm 104, I see no contradictions.
LikeLike
Todd Shriver,
I appreciate your desire to stay faithful to what Genesis says about Noah’s flood. I share that desire.
There are things scientists do not understand about geology, but what we do understand makes far more sense with standard old-Earth geological explanations than with the flood geology model invented by young-Earth creationists. This “Six bad arguments” series gives some examples of failed flood geology explanations for Earth’s rock record. Flood geology fails to explain Earth’s sedimentary rocks, igneous rocks, metamorphic rocks, landforms, fossil record, tectonic plates, and much more. One way to summarize the many problems with flood geology is “too many events, too little time.” It is impossible to squeeze the complex rock record into several months of geologic activity.
Even more critical, however, is that flood geology is not biblically necessary. For some reasons why I say this, check out the “GeoScriptures” link at the top of this page.
You started your comment by saying “I am a Christian — I try to be.” Never forget that the gospel is not about what we try to do for God, but what he has done for us in Christ. It is not about us giving our lives to Jesus, but about him giving his life for us.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” – Ephesians 2:8,9
LikeLike
GeoChristian,
I appreciate your kind reply!
I have a question, though (maybe I misunderstood):
Does a global Flood have to fit only a YEC model? Do they have to go hand-in-hand?
As you stated:
“There are things scientists do not understand about geology, but what we do understand makes far more sense with standard old-Earth geological explanations than with the flood geology model invented by young-Earth creationists.” I agree.
But what about a ‘flood geology model invented by OLD-Earth creationists’?
Do you follow me?
Thank you again for your response!
LikeLike
GeoChristian,
Hope you are well.
I have a question. First, some background information, and something for you to consider: the Bible states there were two sources of water for the Flood…water from above, and water from below. “Vast springs of the deep”.
Where would the land directly above these springs, have to go? Since the uprushing water would create a vacuum, they would go down, right? (Maybe the land falling, caused these springs to gush upward!)
I think this might be where Psalms 104 comes in. We know mountains have roots. They are stable. But the passage at verse 8 (ESV) says, “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down…” This, no doubt, is from the perspective of a ground observer, if someone had been there, watching the events unfold. (Like in Genesis 1).
It’s as if the Earth, during and after the course of the Flood, compacted on itself. This implies a smoother Earth, prior to the Deluge. No need for water to cover Mt. Everest, or even Mt. Rainier…given the amount of surface water currently on this planet, if our Earth were completely smoothed out, water would cover it to a depth of about 1.7 miles. The tallest mountain before the Flood would therefore be “15 cubits” shy of 1.7 miles high!
So these high mountain ranges we see today are really young, as to their altitude…maybe, even new altogether.
Oh, yes, the rocks are old. But the features they’ve formed, are relatively young, geologically speaking. And to me, considering the extreme elements, ie., erosion, they endure, they look young, with their crisp, sharp characteristics. If these ranges were millions of years old, they would be more rounded by now! Especially from the wind!
Now, my question: are there any aspects of this scenario that you know of which would directly contradict geological facts?
LikeLike
You seem to be describing something along the lines of ‘catastrophic plate tectonic theory’ or ‘hydroplate theory’ that are the current YEC favourites. For such a dramatic change, there should be some tell-tale global deformation preserved in the rocks, and these would be pretty significant. YEC ideas of course postulate these are at the plate boundaries. This is assuming that the heat generated through all this does not actually start melting the crust. If it did not, there should be extensive shear zones at the various margins. I’m not aware of these.
Features like the Himalayas are millions of year old, but they fit very well within the current Plate Tectonic theory. They are still rising due to compression and uplift as the Indian subcontinent collides with the Eurasian plate. We can monitor this motion.
Minor point, but wind erosion has nowhere near the effectiveness of water.
To move the amount of water from the mantle to surface, even if were able to be simply liberated from the minerals its tied up with, would also pose all sorts of problems. Again, there should be signficant deformation patterns in the rocks. We can see examples at smaller scales like kimberlite pipes, which I believe are still considered to have been emplaced near surface very quickly from their sources at depth (my knowledge on this could be dated though)
LikeLike